Skip to main content

Full text of "Works"

See other formats



- A 




W O R K S 













H. M 

Printed by ~Lul<c ftartsard c|- Sons, ntar Line obi s -Inn Pields, 












SECT. V. The agreement of the Proposition of no future 
State in the Mosaic Dispensation, with the Vllth Article 
pf the Church of England evinced. That the Old 
Fathers looked for more than transitory Promises, illus 
trated in the famous case of ABRAHAM, where it is 
proved that the command to offer Isaac was merely an 
information, in a representative Action instead of Words, 
of the Redemption of Mankind by the great Sacrifice 
of CHRIST. Siiewn how this Interpretation overturns 
all the infidel objections against the truth of this part of 
Abraham s history - pp. i 46 

SECT. VI. To support the foregoing Interpretation, The 
Original, Nature, and Use of TYPICAL RITES and SE 
CONDARY SENSES in Prophecies are inquired into. In 
the course of which Inquiry, the Principles of Mr. 
Coilins s book concerning the Grounds and Reasons of 
the Christian Religion are examined and confuted, 
and likewise the ixeasoning of Dr. Sykes against all 
Double Senses of Prophecies in his book intitled, The 



Principles and Connexion of Natural and Revealed Peti- 
gion, cr. The Tsc and < importance of these Questions 
to the subject of The Divine Legation explained. The 
CONCLUSION of the argument, with a recapitulation 
ofit - PP- 4<5i44 
APPENDIX concerning the Book of JOB - pp. 145 i -4 

to the Fifth and Sixth Sections - pp. 15- 2 io 



INTRODUCTION - pp. 213232 

CHAPS. I. to VI. pp. 233348 

PP- 349399 

INDEX to The Divine Legation - - pp. 401 446 

AUTHORS, &c. quoted in The Divine Legation; which 
Quotations are not referred to in the Index, pp.447- 







BUT though it appear that a future state of Re* 
wards and Punishments made no part of the Mosaic 
Dispensation, yet the LAW had certainly a SPIRITUAL 
meaning, to be understood when the fulness of time 
should come : And hence it received the nature, and 
afforded the efficacy, of PROPHECY. In the interim, the 
MYSTERY OF THE GOSPEL was occasionally revealed 
by GOD to his chosen Servants, the Fathers and Leaders 
of the Jewish Nation ; and the dawning of it was gra 
dually opened by the Prophets, to the People. 

And which is exactly agreeable to what our excellent 
Church in its SEVENTH ARTICLE of Religion teacheth 
concerning this matter. 


^fje <DlD Testament i* not contrary to tfje 
for botj in tfce dDlo anU ^eto tCegftammt, 
Hite ijs offered to apankma fc? Ctjrfet, \t>o ft tlje 
onlp ^etitator betloecn dEfofc anD S^an. dllljertfocc 
tljep are not to be Ijearti, toljict) feiffn tljat tje flDlU 
$ atSergj tiiti look onlg for trangitorp ^rom^ejJ^ 

VOL. VI. B The 


The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, is 
a proposition directed against the Manichean error, to 
which the opinions of some Sectaries of these later times 
seemed to approach. The Manicheans fancied there was 
a. Good and an Evil Principle; that the Old Dispensa 
tion was under the Evil, and that the New was the 
work of the Good. Now it hath been proved, that the 
Old Testament is so far from being contrary to the New, 
that it was the Foundation, Rudiments, and Preparation 
for it. 

For both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting 
life is offered to mankind by CHRIST, who is the only 
Mediator between G,od and Mcu\ That the Church 
could not mean by these words, that everlasting life was 
offered to mankind by CHRIST in the Old Testament in 
the SAME MANNER in which it is offered by the New, 
is evident from these considerations: 

1. The Church, in the preceding words, only says, 
the Old Testament is NOT CONTRARY to the. New, 
but did she mean that everlasting life was offered by 
both, in the same manner, she would certainly have said, 
The Old Testament is THE SAME with the New. This 
farther appears from the inference drawn from the pro 
position concerning everlasting life WHEREFORE they 
are not to be heard, which feign that the old FATHERS 
did look only for transitory promises. But was this pre 
tended sense the true, then the inference had been, That 
ALL THE ISRAELITES were instructed to look for more 
than transitory promises. 

2. The Church could not mean, that everlasting life is 
offered in the Old and New Testament in the same 
manner, because we learn from St. Austin, that this was 
one of the old Pelagian heresies, condemned by the 
Catholics in the Synod of Diospolis, QUOD LEX sic 




De Genie Pelagii, c, xi. $ 24. 



What was meant therefore by the words both in 
the Old and New Testament, everlasting Life is offered 
to Mankind by CHRIST, was plainly this; " That the 
" offer of everlasting Life to Mankind by CHRIST in 
" the New Testament was SHADOWED OUT in the Old; 
" the SPIRITUAL meaning of the Law and the Pro- 
" phets referring to that life and immortality, which 
" was brought to light by JESUS CHRIST." 

3. But lastly, Whatever meaning the Church had in. 
these words, it cannot at all affect our Proposition, that 
a future state was not taught by the Law of Mo .?; 
because by the Old Testamemt is ever meant both the 
Law and the Prophets. Now I hold that the Prophets 
gave strong intimations, though in figurative language 
borrowed from the Jewish Economy, of the everlasting 
life offered to mankind by JESUS CHRIST. 

The concluding words of the Article which relate to 
this matter say, Wherefore they are not to be heard, 
which feign that the OLD FATHERS did look only for 
transitory promises ; and so say I : because JESUS him 
self is to be heard, before all such ; and he affirms the 
direct contrary of the Father of th& faithful in particular. 
Your father Abraham (says he to the unbelieving Jews) 
rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad*. 
A fact not only of the utmost certainty in itself, but of 
the highest importance to be rightly understood. That 
I may not therefore be suspected of prevarication, I chuse 
this instance (the noblest that ever was given of the 
HARMONY between the Old and New Testament) to 
illustrate this consistent truth. 


And I persuade myself that the learned Reader will 
be content to go along with me, while I take occasion, 
from these remarkable words of JES US, to explain the 
liistory of the famous COMMAND TO ABRAHAM TO 

* John viii. 56. 



OFFER UP HIS SON ; for to this History, I shall prove, 
the words refer ; and by their aid I shall be enabled to 
justify a revolting circumstance in it, which has been 
long the stumbling-block of Infidelity, 

In the sense in which the History of the COMMAND 
hath been hitherto understood, the best apology for 
Abraham s behaviour (and it is hard we should be 
obliged, at this time of day, to make apologies for an 
action, which, we are told, had the greatest merit in the 
sight of God) seems to be this, that having had much 
intercourse with the GOD of Heaven, whose Revelations 
(not to say, his voice of Nature) spoke him a good and 
just Being, Abraham concluded that this command to 
sacrifice his son, conveyed to him like the rest, by the 
same strong and clear impression on the Sensory, came 
also from the same GOD. How rational soever this 
solution be, the Deist, perhaps, would be apt to tell us 
it was little better than Electra s answer to Orestes, who, 
staggering in his purpose to kill his Mother by the com 
mand of Apollo, says : But if, after all, this should be 
an evil Demon, who, bent ttpon mischief hath assumed 
the form of a God? She replies, JFhat, an evil Demon 
possess the sacred Tripod! It is not to be supposed*. 

But the idea hitherto conceived of this important 
History has subjected it even to a worse abuse than that 
of Infidelity: Fanatics, carnally as well as spiritually 
licentious, have employed it to countenance and support 
the most abominable of their Doctrines and Practices. 
liimius in his Candid Narrative hath given us a strange 
passage from the writings of the Moravian Brethren, 
which the reader, from a note of his, will find trans 
cribed here below f, 


w. Eurip. Electra, ver, 979, 

f " lie (tke Saviour) can dispose of life and soul; he can mak 
* the ceconomy of salvation, and change it every hour, that the hin- 
u dermost be the foremost ;.. He can make laws, and abrogate them ; 

* TURE; 


However, after saving and reserving to ourselves the 
benefit of all those arguments, which have been hitherto 
brought to support the history of the COMMAND; I beg 
leave to say, that the source of all the difficulty is the veiy 
wrong idea men have been taught to entertain of it, while it 
was considered as given for a TRIAL ONLY of Abraham s 
faith ; and consequently as a Revelation unsought by 
him, and unrelated to any of those before vouchsafed 
unto him : Whereas, in truth, it was a Revelation AR 
and was, indeed, the COMPLETION OF ALL THE FORE 
GOING ; which were all directed to one end ; as the 
gradual view of the orderly parts of one intire Dispen 
sation required : consequently, the principal purpose 
of the COMMAND was not to try Abraham s faith, 
although its nature was such, that in the very giving 
of it, God did, indeed, tempt or try Abraham *. 

In plain terms, the Action was enjoined as the con 
veyance of information to the Actor, of something he had 
requested to know : This mode of information by Signs 
instead of Words being, as we have shewn, of common 
practice in those early Ages : And as the force of the 
following reasoning is founded on that ancient custom, 
I must request the Reader carefully to review what 
hath been said in an early part of the Fourth Volume, 
Book IV. Sect. 4. concerning the origin, progress, and 
various modes of personal converse ; where it is seen, 
how the conveying information, and giving directions, 
to Another, by Signs and Actions, instead of ft ords 9 
came to be of general practice in the first rude Ages ; 
and how, in compliance therewith, GOD was pleased 


" TURF, ; the greatest virtue to be the most villanons action* and 
* the most virtuous thoughts to be the most criminal : He can in 
* a quarter of an hour, make ABRAHAM willing to kill his Son, 
" which however is the most abominable thought a man can 
Count Zinzendurf s Serm. in Rimius, p. 53, 

* Gen. xxii. i. 


frequently to converse with the holy Patriarchs and 
Prophets in that very manner. 

Laying down therefore what hath been said on this 
subject, in the place referred to, as a Postulatum; 
I undertake to prove the following Proposition : 



in its nature, exactly the same as those informations to 
the Prophets, where to this Man, God says, Make thee 
bonds and yokes, and put them on thy neck f ; to another 
Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms J, <*c. and 
to a third Prepare thee stuff for removing \ , S$c. that 


INSTEAD OF WORDS ; in the first case, foretelling the 
conquests of Nebuchadnezzar over Edom, Moab, Am- 
mon, Tyre, and Sidon ; in the second, declaring his 
abhorrence of the idolatries of the House of Israel ; and 
in the third, the approaching Captivity of Zedekiah. 

The foundation of my Thesis I lay in that scripture 
of St. John, where JESUS says to the unbelieving Jews, 


i. If we consider Abraham s personal character, 
together with the choice made of him for head and origin 
of that People which GOD would separate and make holy 
to himself; from whence was to arise the REDEEMER 
of Mankind, the ultimate end of that separation; we 
cannot but conclude it probable, that the knowledge 

Gen. xxii. a. f Jerem. xxvii. 2. J Ploseai. 2. 

Ezek. xii. 3. jj Chap. viii. ver. 56. 



of this Redeemer would be revealed to him. Shall 1 hide 
from Abraham that thing which I do*? says GOD, in a 
matter that much less concerned the Father of the Faith 
ful. And here, in the words of JESUS, we have this 
probable truth arising from the nature of the thing, 
made certain and put out of all reasonable question 
Abraham rejoiced, says JESUS, to see my DAY f, f5}vty*c /> 
TW Iptv. Now when the figurative word day is used, 
not to express in general the period of any ones existence, 
but to denote his peculiar office and employment, it must 
needs signify that very circumstance in his life, which is 
characteristic of such office and employment. But 
JESUS is here speaking of his peculiar office arid-employ 
ment, as appears from the occasion of the debate, which 
was his saying, If any man keep my commandments, lie 
shall never taste of death, intimating thereby the virtue 
of his office of Redeemer. Therefore, by the word DAT 
must needs be meant that characteristic circumstance 
of his life ; But that circumstance was the laying down 
his life for the Redemption of Mankind. Consequently, 
by the word DAY is meant the great sacrifice of 
CHRIST I". Hence we may discover the real or affected 
ignorance of the Socinian Comment upon this place ; 
which would have day only to signify in general the life 
of CHRIST, or the period of his abode here on earth. 

To reconcile the learned Reader to the propriety and 
elegance as well as to the truth of this sense of the word, 
Day, he may observe, that as Jesus entitles his great Work, 
in his state of humiliation, the Redemption of Mankind, by 
the name of HIS DAY ; so is he pleased to give the same 
appellation to his other great Work, in his triumphant 
state, the Judgment of J\ I unkind. " For as the lightning 
" (says he) that lightneth out of the one part under 
" heaven, so shall also the Son of man be in HIS 
DAY." But this figure is indeed as usual in Scrip- 

* Gen. xviii. 17. f John viii. 56, 

| See Note [A] at the end of this Book, Luke xvii, 34. 

B 4 tare 


ture as it is natural in itself. Thus that signal catastrophe 
in the fortunes of the Jewish People, both temporal and 
spiritual, their Restoration, is called their DAY Then 
shall the Children of Judah (says God by the Prophet 
Hosea) and the children of Israel) be gathered together, 
and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out 
of the land: for great shall be THE DAY of Israel*. 

2. But not only the matter, but the manner, likewise 
of this great Revelation, is delivered in the text Abraham 
rejoiced to SEE my day: and he SAW it, and was glad. 
lyy. IAH* TW vpig&v ^w Iptv y^ i IAE This evidently shews 
the Revelation to have been made, not by relation in 
words, but by REPRESENTATION in action. The verb 
ti$u is frequently used in the New Testament, in its 
proper signification, to see sensibly, but whether used 
literally or figuratively, it always denotes a lull intuition. 
That the expression was as strong in the Syrian langi; ?;e 
used by JESUS, as here in the Greek of his Historian, 
appears from the reply the Jews made to him Thou 
cut not yet fifty years old, and hast thou SEEN Abra 
ham^? Plainly intimating that they understood the 
assertion of Abrahams seeing Christ s day to be a real 
beholding him in person. We must conclude therefore, 
from the words of the text, that the Redemption of Man 
kind was not only revealed to Abraham, but was revealed 
likewise by representation. A late Writer, extremely well 
skilled in the style of Scripture, was so sensible of the 
force of JESUS S words, hat, though he had no suspicion 
they related to any part of Abraham s recorded history, 
yet he saw plainly they implied an information by repre 
sentation Thus also Abraham (says he) saw the day 
of CHRIST, and zvas glad. But this must be in a 
typical or prophetical vision J. The excellent Dr. Scott 
is of the same opinion. lie supposes " the words reler to 
some peculiar discoveries, which the Spirit of God 

* Chap i. ver. n. f John viii. 57. 

J See Note [B] at the end of this Book. 

" might 


" might make to Abraham, for his own private conso- 
" lation, though not recorded in Scripture**? 

So far, then, is clear, that Abraham had indeed this 
Revelation. The next question will be, whether we can 
reasonably expect to find it in the history of his life, 
recorded in the Old Testament? And that we may find 
it here, both the words of JESUS, and the nature of the 
thing, assure us. 

i. We learn, by the history of CHRIST S Ministry, that 
in his disputations with the Jew?, he never urged them 
with any circumstance of GOD S Dispensations to their 
Forefathers, which they either were not, or might not be, 
well acquainted with by the study of their Scriptures. 
The reason is evident. His credentials were twofold, 
SCRIPTURE and MIRACLES. In the first way therefore 
of confirming his Mission, if, instead of appealing to the 
course of GOD S Dispensation to his chosen People, as 
delivered in Scripture, he had given them an unknown 
history of that Dispensation, (as was one of the tricks 
of Mahomet in his Alcoran) such a method had been 
so far from supporting his Character, that it would have 
heightened the unfavourable prejudices of Unbelievers 
towards him : as looking like a confession that the known 
history was against him ; and that he was forced to invent 
a new one, to countenance his pretensions. He must, 
therefore, for the necessary support of his Character, 
appeal to some acknowleged Facts. These were all 
contained in SCRIPTURE and TRADITION. But, we 
know, he always studiously declined supporting himself 
on their Traditions, though they were full of circum 
stances favourable to the Religion he came to propagate, 
such as the doctrines of eternal Life, and the Resur 
rection of the Body: Nay, he took all occasions of 
decrying their TRADITIONS as impious corruptions, by 
which they had rendered the WRITTEN word of none 
effect. We conclude, therefore, from JESLJS S own 
* Christian Life, Vol. V, p. 194. 



words, that the circumstance of Abraham s knowledge 
of his Day is certainly to be found in Abraham s history : 
Not in so clear a manner, indeed, as to be understood 
by a Carnal-minded Jew, nor even by a System-making 
Christian, for reasons hereafter to be explained; yet 
certainly There ; and certainly proved to be There, by the 
best rules of logic and criticism. 

2. But though this did not (as it does) appear from 
the words of JESUS, yet it might be collected from the 
very nature of the thing. For, admit only the fact (as 
we now must) that Abraham did see CHRIST S Day, 
and it is utterly incredible that so capital a circumstance 
should be omitted in his History, a sacred Record, pre 
ordained for one of the supports and evidences of CHRIST S 
Religion. That it could not be delivered in the book of 
Genesis, in terms plainly to be understood by the People, 
during the first periods of a preparatory Dispensation, is 
very certain ; as will be seen hereafter : But then, this 
is far from being a reason why it should not be recorded 
at all : Great ends, such as supporting the truth of the 
future Dispensation, being to be gained by the delivery 
of it even in so obscure a manner. 

Having thus far cleared our way, and shewn, that the 
doctrine of Redemption was revealed to Abraham; and 
that the history of that Revelation is recorded in Scrip 
ture ; we proceed to the proof of these two points : 

I. That there is no place, in the whole history of Abra- 
liam, but this, where he is commanded to offer up his 
Son, which bears the least marks or resemblance of such 
a Revelation. 

II. That this Command to offer up his Son, has all the 
marks of such a Revelation. 

I. On the first head, it will be necessary to give a short 
abstract of Abraham s story : in which we find a regular 
account of the course and order of GOD S Dispensations 
to him, from the time of his being called out of Chaldea, 

2 tO 


to the Command to offer up his Son Isaac ; the last 
of GOD S Revelations to him, recorded in Scripture. 

The first notice given us of this Patriarch is in the 
account of his Genealogy, Family, and Country*. We 
are then toldf, that God called him from his father s 
house to a Land which he should -shew him: And to ex*- 
cite his obedience, he promises to make of him a great 
Nation^: to have him in his peculiar protection, and to 
make all the Nations of the Earth blessed through hirn^. 
The last part of this promise is remarkable, as it con 
tains the proper end of GOD S Choice and Separation of 
him and his Posterity; and so, very fitly made, by the 
sacred Writer, the foundation of the history of GOD S 
Dispensations to him; and a mark to direct the reader 
to what, they are all ultimately to be referred. Which, 
by the way, exposes the extreme absurdity in Collins and 
Tindal, who would have the blessing here promised to be 
only an Eastern form of speech, honourable to the 
Father of the Faithful. When Abraham, in obedience 
to this command, was come into the land of Canaan ||, 
GOD vouchsafed him a farther Revelation of his Will; 
and now told him, that this was the Land (which he had 
before said he would shew him) to be inherited by his 
Seed**. When he returned from Egypt, GOD revealed 
himself, still farther, and marked out the bounds^ of 
that Land, which he assured him should be to him and 
his Seed for ever J J. Which Seed should be as the dust of 
the earth for number. After all these gracious and re 
peated assurances, we may well suppose Abraham to be 
now grown uneasy at his Wife s barrenness, and his own 
want of issue to inherit the Promises. Accordingly,, we 
find him much disturbed with these apprehensions j|||; 
and that GOD, to remove them, appeared to him in a vision, 

* Gen. xi. 27, & seq. -f- Chap. xii. ver. i. J Ver. 2, 

Ver. 3. |j Ver. 5. ** Ver. 7. 

tt Chap. xiii. ver. 14. J J Ver, 15. Ver. 16. 

|j|j Chap, xv, ver, i. 



and said, Fectr not, Abram? I am thy shield, and exceed 
ing great reward. Abraham, thus encouraged to tell his 
grief, confessed it to be for his want of issue, and for that 
he suspected the promised blessings were to be inherited 
Iby hrs adopted children, the sons of his servant Eliezer 
ef Damascus*. To ease him of this disquiet, GOD 
was now pleased to acquaint him, that his design was not, 
that an adopted son should inherit, but one out of his 
awn bowels^. And, for farther assurance, he instructs 
feira in the various fortunes of his Posterity That his 
Seed should be a stranger in a Land that was not theirs, 
which Land should afflict them four hundred years, and 
that then he would judge that Nation, and afterwards, 
hrhig them out with great substance to inherit the Land 
of Canaan^. At the same time GOD more particu 
larly marks out the bounds of the Promised Land, and 
reckons up the several Nations which then inhabited it. 
Tilings being in this train, and Abraham now satisfied 
that the Seed of his loins was to inherit the Promises ; 
Sarah, on account of her sterility, persuaded her Hus 
band to go in unto her Hand -maid Hagar, the Egyptian ||. 
In this she indulged her own vanity mid ambition; she 
would have a Son whom she might adopt; It may be 
(says she} that I may obtain children by ACT**; and she 
flattered herself with being, at the same time, an instru 
ment to promote the designs of Providence : Behold now 
(says she) the Lord hath restrained me from bearing. 
To this project Abraham consented. Hagar conceived, 
ami bare a Son, called Ishmael| |;. The good Patriarch 
was now fully satisfied: He grew fond of Ishmael; and 
reckoned upon him for the inheritor of the promises. To 
correct this mistake, GOD vouchsafed him a new Reve 
lation ; in \\hich he is told, that GOD would not only 
(as had been before promised) bless and multiply his 

* Chap, xv.ver. 2, 3. f Ver. 4. J Ver. 13, 14* 

^ Ver. i&. to trie end. [| Chap. xvi. ** Ver. 3. 

*H Ver. 15. }{ Chap. xvii. 



Posterity in an extraordinary manner, but would sepa 
rate them from all other Nations, and he would be their 
GOD, and they should be his PEOPLE*. And this 
national adoption requiring a mutual Covenant, the rite 
of CIRCUMCISION is at the same time enjoined as the 
mark of the Covenantf- Lastly/ Abraham is shewn his 
foad mistake, and told, that it was not the Son of tlie 
hond-u-oman, but of his Wife Sarah, who was ordained to 
be Heir of the Promises J. But Abraham had so long in 
dulged himself in his mistake, and consequently in Ms 
.affection for Ishmael, that he begs GOD would indulge 
it too O that Ishmael might live -before thee\. And 
GOD, in compassion to his paternal fondness, graciously 
promises that the Posterity of Ishmael should become 
exceeding great and powerful j), but, that, nevertheless, 
his Covenant should be with Isaac, and with Jus &&d 
after him*. However, this Revelation having been re 
ceived with some kind of doubt, as appears by the words 
of the historian * *, God w r as pleased to repeat the pro 
mise of a Son by Sarah ff : and even to mark the time 
of his birth;); J ; according to which, Sarah conceived and 
bore Abraham a Son . After this, GOD revealed him 
self yet again to Abraham ||||, with a command to put 
away his Son Ishmael; and to assure him, that the 
CHOSEN POSTERITY should come from Isaac ; For 
Abraham was not yet weaned from his unreasonable 
partiality for Ishmael ; but still reckoned upon him as 
his Second hopes, in case of any disaster or misfortune, 
that should happen to Isaac. This appears from IshrnaeFs 
insolent behaviour^; from Abraham s great unwil 
lingness to dismiss him *f ; and from God s assuring him, 
m order to make him easy, That in Isaac his Seed should 

* Ver. 7, & seq. f See note [C] at the end of this Book. 

J Ver. 16. Ver. 18. || Ver. 20, & seq. 

1T Ver. 19. * * Ver. 17. f f Chap, xviii, - 

JJ Ver. 10. 14. Chap. xxi.ver2. ||jl Ver. 12* 

ff Ver, 9. *f Ver. u- 


be called*. We now come to the famous History of 

the Command to offer up his Son Isaac And it came 
to pass (says the sacred historian) AFTER THESE THINGS, 
that God did tempt Abraham, and said, Take now thy 
Son, THINE ONLY sox Isaac, whom thou loves t, and get 
thee unto the land of Moriah: and offer him there for a 
burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will 
tell thee of. And Abraham arose f, &c. This was the 
last of God s Revelations to Abraham And it came to 
pass after these things And with this, the history of 
them is closed. 

Here we see all these Revelations, except the last, are 
plain and clear, as referring to TEMPORAL Felicities to 
be conferred on^ Abraham and his Posterity after the 
flesh ; through* whom, some way or other, a BLESSING 
was to extend to all Mankind. Not one of these there 
fore can pretend to be that Revelation of the Redemption 
of the world. The last is the only dark and obscure 
one of the whole; which, if indeed a Revelation of this 
grand Mystery, must of necessity, as we shall shew, be 
darkly and obscurely recorded. 

But to this perhaps it may be objected, that the famous 
Promise of GOD to Abraham, that in him should all the 
Families of the earth be blessed^., is that Revelation ; 
because St. Paul calls this the preaching of the Gospel 
unto him And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would 
justify the Heathen through Faith, preached before the 
Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations 
of the earth be blessed \. To this 1 reply, that the 
Apostle is here convincing the Galatians, that the 
Gospel of CHRIST is founded on the same PRINCIPLE 
\vith that which justified Abraham, namely, FAITH; 
Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for 
righteousness ||. He then pursues his argument in this 
manner, Therefore, they which be of Faith> are blessed 

* Chap. xxi. ver. ia. f Chap, xxii, ver. i, 2, 3. 

J Chap. xii. ver. 3. GaU iii, 8, jj Ver, 6. 



with faithful Abraham*. The reason he gives is from 
the promise in question, given in reward of Abraham s 
Faith, that in him should all Nat torn be blessed. This is 
the force of the argument ; and it is very finely managed 
But then the terms, Faith and Gospel, are here used, as 
they very often are in the apostolic writings f, not in their 
specific but generic sense, for confidence in any one, and 
glad tidings in general. For it is plain, Abraham s 
Faith here recommended, was not that Christian Faith 
in JESUS the MESSIAH, but, faith in GOD, who had 
promised to make his Posterity according to the flesh, as 
numerous as the stars of Heaven, when as yet he had no 
offspring . In a like latitude of expression, St. Paul 
uses the word vptvaykxfypvu, to preach the Gospel be 
forehand ; not the tidings of the Messiah the Redeemer, 
but the effects of the Redemption wrought by him, a 
BLESSING on the whole race of mankind. Tidings 
which indeed referred to a future Dispensation: and, in 
this, differing from his use of the word Faith, which did 
not. But then, this is very far from his SEEING CHRIST S 
DAY ; of which indeed he speaks in another place, as 
we shall see presently. It is true, this promised BLESS 
ING was the preparatory Revelation, by which, we were 
to estimate the ultimate end of all the following ; and on 
which, we must suppose them to be built: And so much 
we are concerned to prove it was. I conclude therefore, 
that when Jesus says, Abraham saw his Day; and when 
St. Paul says, that he had the, Gospel preached before 
unto him, they spoke of two different Revelations. We 
come, therefore, 

II. To the second point : which is to shew, that the 
COMMAND to offer up Isaac was the very revelation of 
CHRIST S DAY, or the Redemption of mankind, by his 
death and sufferings. 

* Ver. 9. 

t See what hath been said on this subject in the preceding dis 
course on the xith chapter to the Utbrei&s. 
| Gen, xy. 6. 

i. We 


1 . We may observe, from this short view of Abraham s 
history, that all GOD S Revelations to him, even unto this 
last, open by degrees ; and relate, primarily indeed, to 
his Posterity according to the flesh, but ultimately, to 
the whole race of Mankind : as appears from that 
MY STICK Promise so early made to him as the foun 
dation of all the following, that in Him should all the 
Families of the earth be blessed. These are the two 
great coincident Truths, to which all these Revelations 
tend. But the last, the famous Command in question, 
which one would naturally expect to find the confirmation 
and completion of the rest, hath, if the common Inter 
preters understand it right, no kind of relation to them, but 
is entirely foreign to every thing that preceded. Hence 
we conclude, and surely not unreasonably, that there is 
something more in \he.Command than these Interpreters, 
resting in the outside relation, have yet discovered to us. 

2. But this is not all. The Command \ as it hath 
been hitherto understood, is not only quite disjoined 
from the rest of Abraham s history, but likewise occu 
pies a place in it, which, according to our ideas of 
things, it hath certainly usurped. The Command is sup 
posed to be given as a Trial only*. Now when the 
great Searcher of hearts is pleased to try any of his 
Servants, either for example sake, or for some ether end 
favourable of his Dispensations to mankind ; as in this, 
he condescends to the manner of men, who cannot judge 
of the merits of their inferior Agents without Trial, so we 
may be assured, he would accommodate himself to their 
manner likewise, in that which is the material circum 
stance of a Trial : But, amongst men, the Agent is 
always tried before he be set on work, or rewarded ; 
and not after : because the Trial is in order to know, 
or to make it known, whether he be fit for the work, or 
deserving of the Reward. When we come therefore to 
this place, and see a Command only to tempt or try 

* See Note [D] at the end of this Book. 



Abraham, we naturally expect, on his answering to the 
Trial, to find him importantly employed or greatly re 
warded. On the contrary we are told, that this Trial 
was made after all his Work was done, and all his 
Reward received And it came to pass after these 
things. Nay, what is still more strange, alter he had 
been once tried already. For the promise to him, when 
he was yet childless, his Wife barren, and both of them 
far advanced in years, that his seed should be as tlie stars 
of Heaven for multitude, was a Trial of his faith ; and 
his believing, against all probability in a natural way, 
the sacred Historian tells us, was accounted to him J or 
righteousness*. Such therefore being the method Loth 
of GOD and Men in this matter, we must needs con 
clude, that the Command was not, according to the 
common notion, a Trial only, because it comes ajter 
all GOD S Dispensations f. Yet as the sacred text 
assures us it was a Trial, and as a Trial necessarily 
precedes the employment or reward of the person tr ied ; 
we must needs conclude, that as no employment, so some 
benefit followed this trial. Now, on our interpretation, 
& benefit, as we shall see, did follow : We have reason 
therefore to conclude that this interpretation is the true. 

3. Having seen the difficulties arising from the com 
mon interpretation of the Command, let us view it now 
on the other .side ; in the new light in which we have 
adventured to place it. And here we shall find that 
every circumstance of the Story concurs to support our 
interpretation. From the view given of Abraham s his 
tory, we see, as was said before, how all GOD S reve 
lations to him, to this last, ultimately related to that 
mystic fundamental promise made to him, on his first 
Vocation, that /// him sknildatl the families of the earth 
be blessed. GOD opens the scheme of his Dispensations 
by exact and regular steps ; and the Revelations follow 
one another gradually and in order. Abraham is first 
* Gen. xv. 6. | See Note [E] at the end of this Book. 

VOL, VI. C commanded 


commanded to go into a Land which should be shewn to 
him then that Land, to be possessed by his numerous 
posterity, is exhibited before him Its distinct boundaries 
are afterwards- marked out He is next assured, while 
yet childless, that his posterity, to which so much was 
promised, should not be from an adapted son, but from 
one out of iiis own loins He is then told that his son 
should be born of Sarah which is- followed by a formal 
execution of the COVENANT confirmed by the seal of 
Circumcision After all this, the birth of Isaac is pre 
dicted : who being born at the appointed time, Ishmael 
is ordered to be sent away ; to design with more certainty 
the succession of the son by Sarah. Here we see through 
out, a gradual opening, and fit preparative for some 
farther Revelation ; which, in pursuance of this regular 
scheme of progressive Dispensations, could be no other 
MESSIAH, the completion of the whole Economy of 
Grare, as it only is the explanation of his first and 
fundamental Promise, that in Abraham should all the 
families of the earth be bkswd. But now, the sole 
remaining revelation of God s "Will to Abraham, recorded 
by the sacred Historian, is the Command to offer up his 
son Isaac. This CGMMANP, then, as there is no other 
that can pretend to be the revelation in question, and as 
ive have shewn it must be somewhere or other recorded 
in Abraham s story, is the very revelation we seek ; which 
perfects all the foregoing, and makes the whole series- 
complete and uniform. And the place in which we find 
it is its proper station ; for, being the completion of the 
reit, it must needs be the last in order. 

Such, in the intention of the Holy Spirit, doth St. 
CHRYSOSTOM, in his comment on the place, understand 

it to be TW Je HMEPAN i^Tvla poi JW^r Xiyi^v Tr,]f TS 

And ;h this he is joined or followed by ERASMUS, in his 
paraphrase. Hoc senigmate Jesus significavit, Abraham, 



quum pararet iminolare filium Isaac, per Prophetia? spi- 
ritum vidisse Dominum Jesum in mortem crucis a patre 
tradendum pro mundi salute. But these excellent men, 
not reflecting on that ancient mode of information, where 
the Inquirer is answered by a significative action instead 
of speech, never conceived that this Command was an 
imparted information of that kind, but rather a typical 
representation unsought, and given in an enjoined Rite ; 
of whose import Abraham had then no knowledge*. 

4. Again, We find the Revelation of the redemption 
of mankind in that very place, where, if considered only 
in itself, and not relatively, as the completion of the rest, 
we should, according to all the rules of plain sense, 
be disposed to seek it. We must know then that this 
Revelation, as shall be proved from the words of JESUS, 
Abraham rejoiced to see my day., and he saw it, ami was 
glad, was ardently desired and sought after by the 
Patriarch. Now the happiness or REDEMPTION of man 
kind promised, on Abraham s first Vocation, to come 
through him, could not but make him more and more 
inquisitive into the manner of its being brought about, 
in proportion as he found himself to be more and more 
personally concerned as the Instrument of so great a 
blessing. But every new Revelation would shew him 
still farther interested in this honour : Therefore, by the 
time Ishmael was ordered to be sent away, and the 
promised Seed fixed in Isaac, we must needs suppose 
him very impatient to understand the Mystery of Re 
demption ; and so, fitly prepared to receive this last and 
supreme Revelation. This, in the like caics, we find to 
be the disposition and state of n.ind in the holy nsen 
of old. Thus Daniel, by the study of the Prophecies 
of Jeremiah, understanding the approaching restoration of 
the Jews, applies himself by tasting and prayer for God s 
further information ; and the Angel Gabriel is sent unto 
him. So John, anxious and solicitous for the suffering 
* See note [F] at the end of this Book. 

c 3 Churchj 


Church, being in prayers on ; the Lord s day, was favoured 1 
with all his glorious Revelations. 

5. Again, The new light in. which this^ Command is 
placed, dispels all that perplexity in the common interpre 
tation (taken notice of above) arising from our ideas 
of a trial] where that which should in. use and reason 
go before some extraordinary favour, Is made to come 
after all. But now, according to our sense of the Com 
mand, the trial, as is meet, precedes the last and greatest- 
favour ever bestowed by God on Abraham. 

6. To confirm all this, we may consider that this- 
interpretation of the Command is most easy and natural, 
fts being intirely agreeable to the ancient way ef com 
municating information. We have shewn *" it to have 
been the general custom of Antiquity-, in personal con 
ferences, to instruct by actions instead of words ; a custom 
begun out of necessity, but continued out of choice, for 
the superior advantages it hath in: making an impression. 
Eor motion, naturally significative, which* enters at the 
eye, hath a much stronger effect than articulate sound? 
only arbitrarily significative, which enters at the ear. 
We have shewn likewise, by numerous examples, that 
God himself vouchsafed, in compliance to a general 
custom, to use this way of information, when he in 
structed the holy Patriarchs and- Prophets in- his Will. 

7. Again, As the high importance of this Revelation: 
seemed to require its being given in the strong and 
forcible way of action |, so nothing can be conceived 
more apposite to convey the information required, than- 
this very action. Abraham desired earnestly to be let 
into the mystery of the REDEMPTION; and GOD, to 
instruct him (in the best manner humanity is capable 
of receiving- instruction) in the infinite extent of divine- 
goodness to mankind, who spared not his own Son^bufr 
delivered him up for us alt%, let Abraham feel, by exr 

* See Book IV. 4. f See aote [G] at. the end of this Book. 
J Iloca..viiL 32. 



perience, what it was to lose a ibeloved Son ; Take now 
<thy son, thine only son Isaac ; the Son born miraculously 
when Sarah was past -child-bearing, as Jesus was miracu 
lously born of a pure Virgin. The duration too of the 
-action was the same as that between CHRIST S Death 
:-and Resurrection ; both which were designed to be re 
presented ?in it : and still farther, not only the final 
jarchiet ypical Sacrifice of the Son -of GO-D was figured 
in the command to offer Isaac, but the intermediate 
Typical sacrifice, m the Mosaic Economy, was repre 
sented, by the permitted sacrifice of the Ram offered up 
anstead of Isaac. 

8. The last reason I shall offer in support of this 
.point, that the Command concerning Isaac was this 
Revelation of Christ s, or the redemption of mai;i~ 
.kind by his death and sufferings, ig the allusion which 
Jesus makes (in these words, Abraham rejoiced to sac 
my day, $c.) to the folio w-ing words of Moses, ia the 
history of the command And Abraham called the name 
of that place Jehovah-jireh : as it is said to this day. In 
the mount of the Lord it shall be seen. 

To shew that Jesus alluded to these words of Moses, 
,-and had them hi his eye, when he speaks of Abraham 
rejoicing to see his day, It will be proper .to -consider the 
{true force and meaning of either text. The words of 
.Jesus have been fully considered already *. 

And, in the words of Moses-?- Abraham vailed the, 
mime of that place Jehovak-jireh : as it is mid to this 
/%, In the mount (f the Lord it shall be seen we have 
the assertion of Jesus confirmed, that Abraham saw 
Christ s day, and KJ&S glad. \.Jehovah-jireh signifies, 
as several of the best interpreters agree, THE LORD 
.SHALL B : E SEENf. JBut with what propriety could this 


* See p. 6. & seq. 

t " Dominus videbitur, (says the learned Father Houbigant) 

_ i, TSonvidetur, ne ab futuro verbi aberremus. 2, Non videbit, non 

* ,modo quia now adUi.tar quid sit Deus visurus, se4 etiara quia in tota 


name be given to it by Abraham, if, in this transaction, 
he had not seen the representation oi the Lord s passion, 
which was to happen in a future age ? And if he did 
see it, how apposite was the name! The Historian goes 
on as it Is said to this day. In the mount of the Lord 
it shall he sctu ; or more exactly to the Hebrew ^/or 
he said, in the mount THE LORD SHALL BE SEEN. In 
the first part of the verse, the sacred Historian tells us 
that Abraham called the mount, The Lord shall be seen] 
and in the latter part he acquaints us with the manner 
how Abraham imposed that appellation, namely, by the 
use of a proverbial speech implying the reason of the 
name To-day in the mount, the Lord shall be seen*. 
Proverbial speeches, before the general use of recording 
abstract names ond things by writing, being the best and 
safest conveyance of the memory of events to Posterity. 
Conformably to this interpretation of the text, the Histo 
rian on his entrance on the transaction calls the land of 


* ilia visione, hominis est viderc, Domini, vidcri; propter quam 
" causciin Deus locum istum mox nomine c-isionis insigniebat. Nimi- 
" rum Deus Abrabamo id ostendit, quod Abraham vidit 4 gavisus 
" est." The near relation of these words of Jesus to those of 
Moses, was too strongly marked to be overlooked by this very judi 
cious Critic, though he considered the transaction in no other light 
than as a, Type of the death and passion of Jesus. 

* Atque hoc illud est (says Father Houbigant) quod memoriae sem- 
piternae Abraham consecrabat, cum ita subjungeret hodie in monte y 
Domimts vidcbitur ; illud hodie sic accipiens, ut acccpit Paulus A p. illud 
}3avidis, hodie si vucem cjns aitdientis; quod hodie tamdiu durat, 
quamdiu biecuLi ilia durahunt, de quibus Apostolus donee hodie cogno- 
iniHctur. Propterea Abraham non dicit, hodie Dominus ridftur, 
Nam id spectaeuhim nuric solus videt Abraham, postea omnes visuri 
sunt, et ad omnes pertinebit istud, videbitur, generatim dictum, cum 
omnss Unigenitum in monte viderint generis humani victimamfactam. 
Kec aliain sententiair. series verborum patitur. Kx quaserie illi de 
viant, qui haec verba, dixit cnim hodie in d> minus Mo&i sic 
Darranti attrtbuurit, propferea dicitur hodie /n monte Domini quasi 
yeu -rfet Moysies usurpatum bua aetate provei bium. Naai si sic erit, non 
jumdoee r\\-, Luic loco nomen fecerit Duminiis ridebitur; 

quam tainen iiomiuum ntatioriem in sacris pagiius non omittunt ii, 
quicumque in-mina rebus imponunt. Quod contra plane aucebit 
Abi "c, eo Moysis sic narrat, vocai it women, loci 

isn i;^.; nam dixit, in monte Dcus vi 


Moriah, to which Abraham went with Isaac (according 
to Jerom s interpretation), the LAND OF VISION, which 
shews that the words of Jesus. Abraham SAW MY DAT, 
and KYW-GLAD, evidently allude to this extraordinary cir 
cumstance; namely, the disposition of Abraham s mind 
on the occasion, expressed in his memorial of a new 
name imposed on the scene of action; the ancient way 
of commemorating joyful and happy events. In a word, 
Jesus says, Abraham saw his day ; and Abraham, by 
the name he imposed upon the mount, d-eclares the same 
thing. But as the VISION was of a public, not of a 
private nature, he ex-presses himself in terms which 
signify what mankind in general shall see, not what he 
himself had seen THE LORD SHALL BE SEEN". From 
a vague allusion, therefore, of the words of Jesus, to 
this history of the command in general, we have now 
fixed th^m to the very words of Moses, to which they 
more particularly refer. 

The sum then of the Argument is this JESUS ex 
pressly says that Abraham saw, and rejoiced to ee, his 
day, or the great Sacrifice for the sins of mankind by 
representation The records of sacred History must 
needs verify his assertion But there is no place in 
Scripture which presents the least traces of this Revela 
tion, except the history of the Command to offer Isaac. 
This history not only easily and naturally admits of such 
a sense, but even demands it And reciprocally, this 
sense gives all imaginable light to the History ; and re 
moves the greatest difficulties attending the common in 
terpretation of it. Hence, we conclude with certainty, 
that the command to Abraham to offer up his son was only 
^an INFORMATION IN ACTION, which, ^. Abraham s 
earnest request, God was graciously pleased to give him 
of the great sacrifice of Christ for the Redemption of 
mankind. The thing to be proved. Two great ends 
seem to be gained by this interpretation : The one, to 
free the Command from a supposed violation of natural 

c 4 Law; 


Law; The other, to support the connexion and d - pen 
dency between the two Revelations ; for this interpre 
tation makes the history of the Command a DIRECT 
Prophesy of Christ as Redeemer of the world ; whereas 
the common brings it, at most, but to a TYPICAL inti 
mation. Now the Defenders * of the common inter 
pretation confess, that " the evidence of direct Prophecies 
is superior to that of Types.* 9 

The only plausible Objection which can be made to my 
explanation, I conceive to be the following ~" That what 
" is here supposed the principal and proper reason of the 
" Command, is not at all mentioned by the sacred Histo- 
" rian ; but another, of a different nature ; namely, the 
" Trial of Abraham s faith and obedience And it came 
" to pass after these things, God did tempt Abraham, 
* ai id said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac And 
" when the affair is over, the same reason is again in- 
" sinuated : By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, 
"for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not 
" withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing f 
" mil bless thcrf" <T. 

i. To the first part of the Objection I answer, That 
the knowledge of God s future dispensation in the re 
demption of mankind by the death of his Son, revealed, 
as a singular grace, to the Father of the Faithful, was 
what could by no means be communicated to the Hebrew 
People, when Moses wrote this History for their use ; 
because they being then to continue long under a carnal 
Economy, this knowledge, of the END OF THE LAW, 
would have greatly indisposed them to a Dispensation, 
with which (as a Schoolmaster, that was to bring them 
by degrees, through a harsh and rugged discipline, to the 
easy yoke of CHRIST) GOD, in his infinite wisdom, 
thought fit to exercise them J. But he who does not see, 
from the plain reason of the thing, the necessity of the 

* Dr. Stebbing, f Gen. xxii. 16, 17. 

J See note [11] at the end of this Book. 

Historian s 


Historian s silence, is referred, for farther satisfaction, to 
what hath been already, and will be hereafter said, to 
evince the necessity of such a conduct, in other momen 
tous points relating to that future Dispensation, 

In the mean time, I give him St. Paul s word for this 
conduct of Moses, who expressly tells us, that he pb- 
scuiTcl soine parts of his history, or put a veil over his 
face, that the Israelites wight not see to the end of that 
Law which was to be abolished. And what was that end, 
if not the Redemption of mankind by the death and sacri 
fice of Christ? J/oi &y (says he) put a veil over hisface^ 
that the Children of Israel could not stedfastly look to 
the end of that which is abolished. But their minds 
. were blinded: Jor until this day rtmalneth the same red 
untaken away, in the reading of the Old Testament-, 
which veil is done away in CHRIST*. 

But it may be asked, perhaps, " If such Revelations 
could not be clearly recorded, why were they recorded 
at all?" For a very plain as well as weighty reason; 
that when the fulness of time should come, they might 
rise up in Evidence against Infidelity, for the real relation 
and dependency between the two Dispensations of Moses 
and of Christ^ ; when from this, and divers the like 
instances it should appear, that the Jirst Dispensation 
could be but very imperfectly understood without a re 
ference to the latter. 

But had not the sacred Writer designedly obscured 
this illustrious Revelation, by an omission ef the atten 
dant circumstances, yet the narrative of such a converse 
by action was not in its nature so intelligible or obvious, 
as that where God is shewn conversing by action, to the 
Prophets, in the several instances formerly given J, And 
the reason is this. Those informations, as they are 
^given to the Prophets for the instruction of the People, 
have necessarily, in the course of the history, their ex- 

* 2 Cor. iii. 13, 14. And see note [I] at the end of this Book. 
f See note [K] at the end of this Book. % See Bouk IV. 4. 



planations annexed. But .the information to Abraham 
being solely for his own private consolation (as Dr. Scott 
expresses it above) there was no room for that formal 
explanation, which made the commanded actions to the 
Prophets so clear and intelligible. Yet, as if I had 
never said this, Dr. Slabbing tells the world, I make 
this action of Abraham s parallel to those of the Prophets; 
whereas (says he) it differ* from them all in a very ma 
terial circumstance, as they had their several explana 
tions annexed, and this had not. But to shew by example, 
as well as comparison, that obscurity is naturally atten 
dant on the relation of converse by action, where the in 
formation is for the sake of the Actor only, I shall 
instance in a case where no obscurity was affected by the 
Historian. It is the relation of Jacob s wrestling with 
the Angel*. The Patriarch, on his return from Haran 
to his native Country, hearing of his brother Esau s 
power, and dreading his resentment for the defrauded 
Birthright, addresses himself for protection in this dis 
tress to the GOD of his Fathers, with all humility and 
confidence. GOD hears his prayer; and is pleased to 
inform him of the happy issue of the adventure, by a 
significative action ; The following night, he has a struggle 
with an Angel, with whom he is suffered to make his 
part so good, that from thence he collected GOD had 
granted his petition. This is the circumstance in Jacob s 
history, which affords such mirth to our illiterate Liber 
tines: For this information by action concerning only 
the Actor, who little needed to be told the meaning of a 
mode of Instruction, at that time in vulgar use, hath now 
an obscurity which the Scripture-relations of the siunc 
mode of information to the Prophets are free from, by 
reason of their being given for the use of the People, 
to whom they were explained. 

But it may perhaps be asked, " Why, when the fulness 
of time was come, Scripture did not break its long silence, 

* Gen. xxii. -74, etc, 



and instruct us in the principal and proper reason of 
tlie Command to offer Isaac?" I answer, that it has 
done so. The words of Jesus are a convincing proou 
Nay, I might up farther, and say that this is not the only 
place when 1 the true reason of the Command is plainly 
hinted at. The Author of the Epistle to rise Hebrews, 
speaking of this very Command, says By faith Abraham, 
when he was tried, offered up haac accounting chat 
God was able to raise him up even Jrom the dead, from 
whence also he received him IN A FIGURE*; EN HA- 
PABOAHt, in a Parable: a mode of information either by 
words or actions, which consists inputting one thing for 
another. Now, in a Writer who regarded this com 
manded action as a. representative information of the 
Redemption of mankind, nothing could be more fine or 
easy than this expression. For, though Abraham did not 
indeed receive Isaac restored to life after a real dissoiu-^ 
tion, yet the Son being in this action to represent CHRIST 
suffering death for the sins of the world, when the Father 
brought him safe from mount Moriah after three days, 
(during which the Son was in a state of condemnation to 
death) the Father plainly i ceived him, under the cha 
racter of CHRIST S Representative, as restored trotn the 
dead. For, as his being brought to the mount, there 
bound, and laid upon the Altar, figured the death and 
sufferings of CHRIST, so his being taken from thence 
alive, as properly figured CHRIST S Resurrection from 
the dead. With the highest propriety therefore and ele 
gance of speech, might Abraham be said to receive Isaac 
from the dead in a parable, or in representation f. But 
the nature of the command not being understood, these 
words of the epistle have been hitherto interpreted, to 
signify only that Isaac was a type of Christ, in the same 
sense thai- the old Tabernacle, in this epistle |, is called 
a type- frnff IIAPABOAH, that is, a thing designed by the 

* Chap. xi. ver. 1719. f gee note [L] at the end. 

| Chs-p. ix. ver. 9, 



Holy Spirit to have both a present significancy and a 
future. Which amounts but just to this, That Abraham 
receiving Isaac safe from mount Moriah, in the manner 
related by Scripture, he thereby became a Type. An 
ancient Interpretation, as appears from the reading of 
the vulgar Latin Unde turn <$ IN PAUA.BOLAAI accepit, 
for In parabola, as it ought to : have been translated con 
formably to the Greek. However, I desire it may be 
observed, in car ro bora tion of my -sense <of the Command, 
that the resemblance to Christ s sacrifice in all the cir 
cumstances of the story was so strong, that Interpreters 
could never overlook the resemblance, i their comments 
on ihe passage. 

12. To the second part of the Objection, I answer 
thus ; It is the office of History to assign the Causes of 
the facts related. In those facts therefore, which have 
several Causes, of which the principal -cannot be con 
veniently told, the inferior come in properly to take its 
$)lace. Thus, in the case before us ; though it be made,, 
I presume, very evident that the principal design of the 
Command was to reveal to Abraham, by action instead 
of words, the Redemption of mankind ; yet as this was a 
favour of a very high nature, and conferred on Abraham 
at his earnest request, it was but fit he should approve him* 
self worthy of it by some proportionable Trial ; agreeably 
to what we find in Scripture to be GOD S way of dealing 
\vith his favoured Servants. On this account, therefore, 
GOD was pleased, by the very manner in which this 
Mystery was revealed, to tempt or try Abraham. Where 
the making the favour itself the trial of his deserving it, 
hath all that superior, elegance and beauty which is to be 
conceived in the Dispensations of divine Wisdom only. 
Now, as the principal reason of the Command could not 
be conveniently told by the Historian, this inferior one 
of the Trial is assigned with great truth and propriety 
And it came to pass after these things, God did tempt 
Abraham, and said, Take now thy son, c. And it is to 
6 e 


he observed, that the very manner of recording this 
reason shews it to be indeed what we suppose it; an in 
ferior one. For it is not said that God gave this Com 
mand in order to try Abraham, which expresses a 
principal reason ; but that, m> giving the Co mmand v 
God did try him, which at most only implies an inferior 
one. We have said, that a Trial, when approved, im 
plied a following reward. Now as there may be inorer- 
icasons than one for giving a Command r so there may be* 
more rewards than one attendant on a Trial. Thus it 
was in the case before us. And it is remarkable, that the 
sacred Historian has observed the same pule with regard 
t-o the reward of the Trial as to the reason of She Com* 
marrd. The principal and peculiar reward of Abraham^ 
Trial here was the revelation of the mystery of Redemp 
tion : this the Historian could not mention, for the 
reasons given above : but besides this, GOD rewarded 
him with a repetition of all the former Promises. This 
the Historian could, and, in pursuance of the rules of 
History, does mention :. ; By myself have I sworn, saith 
the Lord, for because than hast done this thing? and hast 
not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing 
I will bless, thce, and in multiplying I will multiply 
thy seed as the stars af Heaven, and as the sand which 
is Uipon the. sea sJiore ; and thy seed shall possess the gate 
&f his enemies ; and in thy seed shall all the nations ef the. 
earth be blessed, becausQ thou hast obeyed my voice *, 

On the whole, This Objection to the interpretation, 
the only one I can think of, is so far from obscuring, and 
weakening, that it adds great light and strength unto it 
For, admitting the sense here proposed, to be indeed the 
true, we see the Story must of necessity have been told 
in the very manner \ve find it to be recorded f. 

Before I conclude this part of the Discourse, I shall, 
but just take notice how strongly this interpretation of the 

* Gen. xxii. ver. 16, & seq. 

t S^e note [M] at the end of this Book. 



Command concludes against the SOCINIANS, for the real 
sacrifice of CHRIST, and the proper Redemption of man 
kind. For if the Command was an information by action 
instead of words > the proof conveyed in it is decisive ; 
there being here no room for their evasion of its Iteing a 
figurative expression, since the figurative action, the 
original of such expression, denotes either a real sacrifice^ 
or nothing at all. 


I come now to the other part of this Discourse, viz. 
to shew, that the interpretation here given intirely dissi 
pates all those blustering objections which Infidelity hath 
raised up against the historic truth of the relation. 

They say, " GOD could not give such a Command to 
Abraham, because it would throw him into inextricable 
doubts concerning the Author of it, as Whether it pro 
ceeded from a good or an evil Being. Or if not so, but 
that he might be satisfied it came from GOD, it would 
then mislead him in his notions of the divine Attributes, 
and of the fundamental principles of Morality. Because,, 
though the revocation of the Command prevented the 
homicide, yet the species of the action commanded not 
being condemned when it was revoked, Abraham and his 
Family must needs have thought HUMAN SACRIFICES 
grateful to the Almighty: forasimple revi/King was not con 
demning ; but would be more naturally thought a peculiar 
indulgence for a ready obedience. Thus, the pagan fable 
of Diana s substituting a Hind in the place of Iphigenia, 
did not make Idolaters believe that she therefore abhorred 
Human Sacrifices, they having before been persuaded of 
the contrary, from the Command of that Idol to offer 
up the daughter of Agamemnon." This is the substance, 
only set in a clearer light, of all their dull cloudy dis 
sertations on the case of Abraham *. 

i. Let us see then how this case stood : GOD had 
been pleased to reveal to him his eternal purpose of 
* See mote [N] at the tnd of this Book. 



making all mankind blessed through him : and likewise 
to confirm this promise, in a regular course of successive 
Revelations, each fuller and more explicit than the other. 
By this time we cannot but suppose the Father of the- 
Faithful must, from the nature of the thing, be become 
very desirous of knowing the manner how this Blessing was 
to be brought about : A Mystery, if we will believe the 
Author of our Faith, that engaged the attention of other 
holy men, less immediately concerned than Abraham, 
and consequently less stimulated and excited by their 
curiosity : And JESUS turned to his Disciples -, and said 
privately, Blessed are the eyes which see the things which 
ye see. For I tell you that -many Prophets and Kings 
have DESIRED to see those things which ye see, and have 
not seen them, and to hear those things which ye hear, 
and have net heard them *. But we are assured, by the 
same authority, that Abraham had, in fact, this very desire 
highly raised in him ; Abraham rejoiced to see my- day 
(says JESUS), and he saw it, and was glad] or rather, 
He rejoiced THAT HE MIGHT SEE, INA IAH; which 
implies, that the period of his joy was in the space 
between the promise made, anil the actual performance 
of it by the delivery of the Command ; consequently, 
that it was granted at his earnest request f. In the 
second place, we shall .shew from the same words, that 
Abraham, at the time when the Command was given, 
KXEW it to be that Revelation he had so earnestly re 
quested. This is of the highest importance for the? 
understanding the true nature of the Command. Your 
Father Abraham rejoiced to see my Day, and he saw it, 

and Was glad. *Apa,a, -a ^o vpw ?JyaAAiW!o INA 

IAH* TJV vipsgu* THV Pjpip! >^ t*$tj ! *Xf*g9 We have 
observed that TV a, i oV, in strict propriety, signifies that 
be might see. The English phrase, to see } is equivocal 

* Luke x. 23, 24. 

t Thus all the Eastern Versions understand it : Syr. Cupidus fuit 

videndi. Pcrs. Cupidus erat ut videret. Arab. Exoptavit videre. 

op t Desidgravit, gavisus est ut Videret. 



and ambiguous, and means either the present time, that 
he then did see ; or the future, that he was promised he 
should see: but the original 5W 1%, has only the latter 
sense. So that the text plainly distinguishes two different 
periods of Joy ; the first, when it wax promised he should 
see] the second, when he actually saw : And it is to be 
observed* that, according to the exact use oi the words, 
in ayaAAtao^a* is implied the tumultuous pleasure which 
the certain expectation of an approaching blessing, under 
stood only in the gross, occasions ; and, in x^w that calm 
and settled joy which arises from our knowledge, in the 
possession of it. But the Translators, perhaps, not ap 
prehending that there was any time between the Grant to 
see, and the actual seeing, turned it, he rejoiced to see ; 
as if it had been the Paraphrase of the Poet Nonnus, 

jJVn/ y y a A XB jo S t/y/.w. 

whereas this History of Abraham hath plainly three 
distinct periods. The first contains GOD S promise to 
grant Abraham s request, when he rejoiced that he should 
see ; this, for reasons given above, was wisely omitted by 
the Historian : Within the second period was the de 
livery of the Command, with which Moses s account 
begins : And Abraham s Obedience, through which he 
saw CI-IUIST S day and was glad, includes the third f. 
Thus the Patriarch, we find, had a promise that big- 
request should be granted ; and, in regard to that pro 
mise, an action is commanded, which, at that time, was 
a common mode of information ; Abraham therefore 
mu t needs know it was the very information so much 
requested, so graciously promised, and so impatiently 
expected. We conclude then, on the whole, that this, 
Command being only the Grant of an earnest request, 
and known by Abraham, at the time of imposing, to be 
such Grant, he could not possibly have any doubt con 
cerning the Author of it. He was soliciting the God 

* See n te [O] at the end of this Book. 
-\ See note [P] at the end of this 



of Heaven to reveal to him the Mystery of Man s" Re 
demption, and lie received the information, in a Com 
mand to offer Isaac ; a Revelation, that had the closest 
connexion with, and was the fullest completion of, the 
whole series of the preceding Revelations. 

2. For, (as we shall now shew, in answer to the second 
part of the objection) the Command could occasion no mis 
takes concerning the divine Attributes; it being, as was said, 
only the conveyance of an information by action instead of 
words, in conformity to the common mode of converse in 
the more early times. This action therefore being mere 
scenery, had NO MORA L IMPORT ; that is, it conveyed or 
implied none of those Intentions in him who commanded 
it, and in him who obeyed the Command, which go along 
with actions that have a moral import*. Consequently the 
injunction and obedience, in an action which hath no such 
import, can no way afreet the moral character of the per 
sons concerned : and consequently, this Command could 
occasion no mistakes concerning the divine Attributes, with 
regard to GOD S delighting in human sacrifices. On the 
contrary, the very information conveyed by it, was the 
highest assurance to the person informed, of God s good- 
Mill towards man. Hence we see there was not the 
least occasion, when GOD remitted the offering of Isaac> 
that he should formally condemn human sacrifices, to 
prevent Abraham or his family s falling into an opinion, 
that such Sacrifices were not displeasing to hiinf, any 
more than for the Prophet Ahijah J, when he had rent 

* See note [Q] at the end of this Book. 
f See note [li] at the end of this Book. 

I " And it came to pass at that time, when Jeroboam went out of 
" Jerusalem, that the Prophet Ahijah the Shilonite found him in the 
" way : and he had clad himself with a new garment: and they two 
<* were alone in the field. And Ahijah caught the new garment that 
" was on him, and rent it in twelve pieces. And he said to Jero- 
" boam, Take thee ten pieces; for thus saith the Lord the God of 
" Israel, Behold, I will rend the. kingdom out of the hand of Solomon, 
" and will give ten tribes to thee." i Kings xi. 29 31. I he circum 
stance of the 7iew garment was not insignificant : It was to denote 
the Power of the kingdom at that time in its full strength and lustre. 

VOL, VI. D Jeroboam s 


Jeroboam s garment into twelve pieces to denote the en 
suing division in the tribes of Israel, to deliver a moral 
precept against the sin of despoiling, and insulting our 
neighbour : For the command having no moral import , 
as being only an information by action, where one thing 
stood for the representative of another, all the conse 
quence that could be deduced from it was only this, that 
the Son of GOD should be offered up for the sins of 
mankind: therefore the conceptions they had of HUMAN 
SACRIFICES, after the command, must needs be just the 
same with those they had before; and therefore, instruc 
tion, concerning the execrable nature of this Rite, was 
not only needless, but altogethei; beside the question. 

But this assertion that A SCENICAL REPRESENTATION 
HAS NO MORAL IMPORT, having been misunderstood 
by many, and misrepresented by more (though nothing, 
as I then thought, could be clearer to men versed in 
moral matters) I shall beg leave to explain myself. 
He who affirms that a scenical representation has no moral 
import, cannot possibly be understood to mean (if inter 
preted on the ordinary rules of Logic and Common 
sense) any thing else than that the representation or the 
feigned aetion has none of that specific morality which 
is in the real action. He can never be supposed to 
mean that such a representation could never, even by 
accident, give birth to a moral entity, of a different 
species; though it kept within, much less if it trans 
gressed the bounds, of its scenical nature. Give me leave 
to explain this by an instance or two. The Tragic scene 
we will suppose to exhibit a Pagan story, in which a 
lewd Sacrifice to Venus is represented. Now I say this 
scenical representation has no moral import. But do I 
mean by this, that there was no immorality or any kind 
in the scene? Far from it. I only mean that that specific 
immorality was absent, which would have existed there, 
had the action been real and not feigned; I mean 
idolatry. Again, another set of Tragedians represent the 



Conspiracy against Julius Caesar in the Senate-house., 
This, I say, has no moral import: for neither could the 
followers of Caesar s Cause call these fictitious Conspi 
rators, enemies to their country; nor could the warmest 
lovers of liberty call them patriots. But if in this repre 
sentation, the Actors, instead of exhibiting an imaginary 
assassination, should commit a real one, on the body of 
the personated Caesar, Who ever supposed that such a 
dramatic representation continued still to have no moral 
import ? The men who committed the action dropt their 
personated, and assumed their real character, being in 
stigated by interest, malice, or revenge; and only waited 
a fit opportunity to perpetrate their designs under the cover 
of a drama. Here indeed, the parallel ceases. The 
feigned Conspirators transgressed the bounds of a repre 
sentation : while the real death of Isaac must be supposed 
to make part of the scenical representation, in the Com 
mand to Abraham. But it should have been considered, 
and was not, that I employed the principle of a feigned 
representations having no moral import, to free t ,e 
Command from the infidel objection that it -as an 
enjoined sacrifice ; not from the objection of its being 
an enjoined death, simply : For a huimn Sacrifice com 
manded was supposed to discredit Revelation, as giving 
too much countenance and encouragement to that horrid 


superstition ; whereas, with regard to a simple death com 
manded, to justify this, I was ready to confide in the 
common argument of Divines, taken from God s sovereign 
right over his creatures : Whose power could instantane 
ously repair the loss, or whose goodness would abundantly 
reward the act of obedience. Yet the fair and candid 
Dr. Rutherforth represents my position of a sctnical re 
presentations having no moral import, to be the same 
with saying, that though an act ion be ever so vile in itself, 
yet, if it be done to represent somewhat else, it loses its 
nature and becomes an indifferent one. Had I the pre 
sumption to believe, that any thing I could say would 

D 2 better 


better his heart or mend his head, I should recommend 
what hath been here said to his serious consideration. 

3. And now we see the weakness of the third and last 
part of the Objection, which supposes this Command 
capable of affording a temptation to transgress the funda 
mental principles of the Law of Nature: one of which 
obliges us to cherish and protect our Offspring; and ano 
ther, not to injure our Neighbour. For as, by the Com 
mand, Abraham understood the nature of man s Redemp 
tion; so, by the nature of that Redemption, he must 
know how the scenical representation was to end. Isaac, 
he saw, was made the person or representative of Christ 
dying for us: The Son of GOD, he knew, could not 
possibly lie under the dominion of the grave. Hence he 
must needs conclude one of these two things, either that 
GOD would stop his hand when he came to give the sacri 
ficing stroke: or that, if trie Revelation of this mystery 
was to be represented throughout in action, that then his 
Son, sacrificed under the person of CHRIST, was, under 
the same person, soon to be restored to lite : accounting 
(as he well might) that God was able to raise him up 
even from the dead, as the Author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews*, who seems to have been full of the idea here 
explained, assures us he did believe. 

Now where was the temptation to violate any Prin 
ciple of Morality in all this? The Law of Nature com 
mands us to cherish and protect our offspring : Was 
that transgressed in giving a stroke whose hurt was pre 
sently to be repaired ? Surely no more than if the stroke 
had been in vision. The Law of Nature forbids all in 
jury to our Fellow-creature: And was he injured, who, 
by being thus highly honoured, in becoming the repre 
sentative of the Son of God, was to share with his Father 
Abraham in the rewards of his obedience? But though, 
as we see, Abraham could have no struggles with himself, 
from any doubts that he might violate Morality in paying 

* Chap. xi. ver. 19. 



obedience to the Command ; yet did the merit of that 
obedience, where the natural feelings were -so alarmed, 
deserve all the encomiums bestowed upon it in Holy 
Writ. For, in expressing his extreme readiness to obey, 
he declared a full confidence in the promises of GOD. 
From hence we may deduce these two corollaries. 

1 . That tiic noble Author of the Characteristics hath 
shewn as much ignorance as malevolence, when he sup 
posed that Abraham s shewing no extreme surprise on 
this trying Revelation was from the favourable notion he 
had of Human Sacrifices, so common amongst the inha 
bitants of Palestine and othtr neighbouring Nations*. 
For we see the reason, why Abraham, instead of being 
under any extreme surprise, was (as JESUS assures us) 
under an extreme joy, was because he understood the 
Command to be a communication of that Mystery in 
which he had so earnestly requested to participate; and, 
consequently, that Isaac must needs, at length, come 
safe and unhurt from that scenical representation, in which 
he bore the principal part. 

2. That Sir John Marsham s suspicion of Abraham s 
being struck by a superstitious imagination | is as ground 
less, as it is injurious to the holy Patriarch, Kay, the. 
very examples he gives might have shewn, him the folly 
of such insinuations: For, according to his inferences, 
Human Sacrifices were never offered but in cases of great 
distress : Now Abraham was at this time in a full state 
of peace, security, and affluence. 

Tims, we presume, it appears that this Command was 
a mere information by action : and that, when regarded 

* See note [S] at the end of this Book. 

t Ex istis satius est colligtre hanc Alrahami tcntationcm non 
fitisse xx_aytJ3^,v>jy <8r4>v 5 actionem in not- u tain ; non rccens excogita- 
tarn, scd ad pristinos Canant&mt* mores dcsignatam. Horrcndi sacri- 
Jicii usum apud Phanicesfreqitentem indicat Porphyries : " Phoenices, 
" inqttit, in magnis periculis ex bello, fame, pestilentia, clarissimorum 
" aliquem ad id suffragiis publicis delectum, sacrificabant Saturno. 
" Et victimarum talium plena est Sanchoniathonis historia Phceni- 
" cice scripta, quam Philo Biblius Grsece interpretatus est libfis 
* octo," Canon. Chron. p. 79. 

P 3 iu 


in this view, all the objections against GOD S giving it to 
Abraham are absolutely enervated and overthrown. 

For thus stands the case. If the trial of Abraham s 
faith and obedience were the commanding a real sacrifice, 
then was Abraham an Agent, and not a bare Instrument ; 
and then it might be pretended that God commanded an 
human agent to act against humanity. And his right 
over his Creatures cannot solve the difficulty, as it may 
when he employs a mere instrument to perform his \Vill 
upon them. But if the trial were only the commanding 
a scenical representation, the command had no moral 
import ; and consequently Abraham was not put upon 
any thing morally wrong; as is the offering up a human 

I have transcribed into the notes, as I have gone along, 
some of the most considerable Objections my Adversaries 
have been able to oppose to this interpretation of the 
COMMAND TO ABRAHAM : which, I presume, when 
fairly considered, will be no light confirmation of it. But,, 
as I have no notions to advance, not founded in a sincere 
clesire to find out, and do honour to, Truth, I would by 
no means take advantage of an Adversary s weakness to 
recommend them to the public favour. I hold it not honest, 
therefore, to conceal the force of an Objection which I 
myself L;:ve to offer, by far more plausible than any that 
these learned Divines have urged against it. The objec 
tion is this, " That it is difficult to conceive why a CIR 
CUMSTANCE of such importance to Revelation, which 
removes one of the strongest arguments against its truth, 
and at ti: same time manifests a REAL CONNEXION 
between the tv.o Dispensations of it, should never be 
directly and minutely explained and insisted on by the 
Writers ot the New Testament, though Abraham s His 
torian might have had his reasons for concealing it." 
Now, to my own Objection, I suppose, I may have leave 
to reply, That many truths of great importance, for the 
support of iteli&ioD, against Infidelity, were taught by 



Jesus to his Disciples (amongst which, I reckon this In 
terpretation to be one) which never came down, by their 
conveyance, to the Church. But being, by the assistance 
of God s Holy Spirit, discoverable by those who devote 
themselves to the study of the Scriptures with a pure 
mind, have, for the wise ends of Providence (many of 
which are inscrutable to us) been left for the industry of 
men to find out: that, as occasion required, every Age 
might supply new evidence of God s Truth, to put to 
silence the ignorance of foolish men : and in proportion 
as the powers of Darkness prevailed, so might the Gospel- 
light break out again with fresh splendor to curb and 
repress them. In support of what is here said, I beg 
the Reader to reflect on what is told us by the Evangelist, 
of the conversation between JESUS (after his Resurrec 
tion) and the two Disciples journeying to Emmaus; 
where their Master says unto them, O fools, and slow of 
heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken! 
Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to 
enter into his glory ? And beginning at MOSES and all 
the Prophets, HE EXPOUNDED UXTO THEM the things 
concerning himself*. Now, who can doubt but that many 
things were at this time revealed, which, had they been 
delivered clown to Posterity, in Writing, would have 
greatly contributed to the improvement of Eusebius s 
Evangelical Demonstration ? Yet hath Providence 
thought fit to order matters otherwise. But, that the 
Apostles used, and made a good use too, of those EXPO 
SITIONS, long since forgotten and lost, w r e have great 
reason to believe from their amazing success in the con 
version of the w r orld, by such an application of Moses 
and the Prophets, to Christ. And if I be not much de 
ceived, amongst the Truths thus inforced, that, which I 
presume to have discovered in the Command to Abraham, 
held no inferior place. Let the unprejudiced Reader 
judge. St. PAUL, making his Apology before king 
* Luke xxiv. 25, 26, 27, 

D 4 Agrippa, 


Agrippa, concludes his Defence in these words : Having 
therefore obtained help cf Gcd, I continue unto this day 
witnessing both to small and great, saying none other 
things than those which the Prophets and MOSES DID 
SAY SHOULD COME: that C n R, i s T should suffer, and 
that he should be the first that should rise from the 
dead*. The G-reek is rather stronger, in predicating 
this circumstance of Moses, rs ol wp^Jrai ixc&xwzv 
ft\Xovruv yW0t, KAI MHIHS. Now where, let me 
ask, in all his Writings, but in the Command to Abraham, 
is there the least trace of any such circumstance, as that 
Christ should suffer, and thai he should be thejirst that 
should rise from the dead? Nor is it to be found there, 
unless the Command be understood in the sense J have 
given to it. 

But this is the state in which it hath pleased Provi 
dence to place the Church of Christ: With abundant 
evidence in hand, to support itself against the attacks 
of Infidelity ; yet much of this divine Treasure left 
sealed up, to exercise our Faith, and (in time of need) 
to excite our Industry : for it was not the intent of Pro 
vidence that one of these virtues should thrive at the 
expence of the other; but that Industry should as well 
be rewarded by a successful search, as Faith, by peace 
in believing. Therefore when my learned Adversary!, 
in order, I will believe, to advance the Christian Faith, 
would discourage. Christian Industry, by calumniating, 
and rendering suspected what he is pleased to call 
EXPERIMENTS in Religion, it is, I am afraid, at best 
but a Zeal without know led ge. Indeed, M. Pascal 
ascribes this contempt of experiments to a different 
cause u Ceux qui sont capable** de in venter soht 
jrares," says he. " Ceux qui n inventent point sont en 
plus grand nombre, par consequent, les plus fortes ; 
et voila pourquoi, lors que les Inventeurs cherchent la, 
* Acts xxvi. 22, 23 ; and to the same purpose, xiii. 31, 

f Dr. Slabbing. 


gloire qinls meritent, tout ce qu ils y gagnent, c est qu on 
les traite de VISIONNAIRES." It is true, if men will 
coine to the study ot Scripture with unwashen hands, that 
is, without a due reverence for the dignity of those sacred 
Volumes, or, which is as ill, with unpurged heads, that 
is, heads stuffed with bigot systems, or made giddy with 
cahalistic flights, they will deserve that title which Pascal 
observes is so unjustly given to those who deserve best 
of the Pubiic. 

But to return to those with whom I have principal 
concern. I make no question but my Freethinking 
Adversaries, to whose temper and talents I am no 
stranger, will be ready to object, 

I. " That tiie giving a solution of a difficulty in the 
Old Testament by tiie assistance of the New, considered 
together as making up one intire Dispensation, is an 
unfair way of arguing against an Unbeliever : who sup 
posing both the Jewish and Christian Religions to be 
false, of consequence supposes them to be independent 
on one another ; and that this pretended relation was a 
contrivance of the Authors of the later imposture to give 
it strength, by ingrafting the young shoot into the trunk 
of an old flourishing Superstition. Therefore, will they 
say, if we would argue with success against them, we must 
seek a solution of their difficulties in that Religion alone, 
from which they arise." Thus 1 may suppose them to 
argue. And I apprehend they will have no reason to say 
I have put worse arguments into their mouths than they 
are accustomed to employ against Revelation. 

I reply then, that it will admit of no dispute, but that, 
if they may have the liberty of turning JUDAISM and 
CHRISTIANITY into two Phantoms of their own devising, 
they will have a very easy victory over Both. This is 
an old trick, and has been often tried with success. By 
this slight-of-hand conveyance TIN DAL hath juggled 
fools out of their Religion. For, in a well-known book 
written by him against Revelation, he hath taken ad 


vantage of the indiscretion of some late Divines to lay 
it down as a Principle, that Christianity is ONLY a re- 
publication of the Religion of Nature : The consequence 
of which is, that CHRISTIANITY and JUDAISM are 
independent Institutions, But sure the Deist is not to 
obtrude his own Inventions, in the place of those Re 
ligions lie endeavours to overthrow. Much less is he 


to beg the question of their falsity ; as the laying it down 
that the Jewish and Christian are two independent 
Religions, certainly is : because Christianity claims many 
of its numerous Titles to divinity from and under Judaism, 
if therefore Deists will not, yet Christians of necessity 
must take their Religion as they find it. And if they 
will remove objections to either Economy, they must 
reason on the Principle of Dependency. And while 
tfoey do so, their reasonings will not only be fair and 
logical, but every solution, on such a Principle, will, 
besides its determination on the particular point in 
question, be a new proof of the divinity of Both, in 
general ; because such a relation, connexion, and de 
pendency between two Religions of so distant times, 
could not come about by chance, or by human con 
trivance, but must needs be the effect of Divine pre 
vision. For a Deist, therefore, to bid us remove his 
objections on the principle of independency, is to bid us 
prove our religion true on a principle that implies its 
fukchood ; the New Testament giving us no other idea 
of Christianity than as of a Religion dependent on, con 
nected with, and the completion of Judaism. 

But now suppose us to be in this excess of complaisance 
for our Adversaries ; and then see whether the ingenuity 
of their acceptance \vould not equal the reasonableness 
of their demand. Without doubt, w r ere we once so 
foolish to swallow their Chimeras for the heavenly 
Manna of Revelation, we should have them amongst 
the first to cry out upon the prevarication. I speak not 
this at random. The fact hath already happened. Cer 


tain advocates of Religion, unable to reconcile to their 
notions of logic, the sense of some Prophecies in the Old 
Testament, as explained in the applications of the Writers 
of the New, thought it best to throw aside the care of 
the JEWISH RELIGION, (a burden which they could as 
ill bear as the rebellious Israelites themselves) and try 
to support the CHRISTIAN, by proving its divine Origi 
nal, independently and from itself alone. Upon this 
Mr. COLLINS (for I have chosen to instance in these two 
general dealers in Free th inking ; the small retailers of 
it vanishing as fast as they appear ; for who now talks 
of B fount or Coward? or who hereafter will talk of 
Strutt or Morgan ? *) that the world may see how little 
they agreed about their own principles, or rather how little 
regard they paid to any principles at all ; Mr. Collins, 
I say, wrote a book to exclaim against our ill faith ; and 
to remind us of, and to prove to us, the inseparable con 
nexion between the Old and New Testament. This 
was no unseasonable reproof, howsoever intended, for so 
egregious a folly. I will endeavour to profit by it; and 
manage this Controversy on their own terms. For what 
ever prevarication appeared in the Objectors, I conceived 
they had demanded no more than what they might rea 
sonably expect. But the advantages arising to us from 
this management soon made them draw back, and 
retract what they had demanded ; and now they chicane 
xvith us for calling in the assistance of the New Testa 
ment to repel their attacks upon the Oldf ; while, at the 
same time, they think themselves at liberty to use the 
assistance of the Old to overthrow the New. Let the 
Friends of Revelation, how r ever, constantly and uniformly 
hold the inseparable connexion between the two Dispen 
sations ; and then, let our Enemies, if they will, as they 
fairly may, take all the advantages they fancy they have 
pgainst us, from the necessity we lie under of so doing. 

* See note [T] at tb* end of this Book. 
t See pot* [UJ at the end of this Book, 



In a word, We give them Judaism and Christianity 
as Religions equally from Heaven ; with that reciprocal 
dependence on each other, which arises between two 
things bearing the mutual relation of foundation and 
superstructure. They have it in their choice to oppose 
our pretensions, either by disputing with us that depen 
dency, or raising difficulties on the foot of it. But while 
they only suppose it visionary ; and then argue against 
each Religion on that supposition, they only beg the 
question. And while they do that, we keep within the 
rules of good logic, when we remove their objections on 
that principle of dependency laid down in Scripture. 
This restrictive rule of interpretation being however still 
observed. That, in explaining any difficulty in the Old 
Testament, we never, on pretence of such dependency, 
forsake the genius and manners of the times in question, 
and serve ourselves of those of the later Christian period, 
as Collins (whether truly or no, let Them look to, who 
are concerned in it) upbraids some defenders of Christi 
anity for doing. This rule is here, I presume, observed 
with sufficient exactness ; the foundation of my interpre 
tation of the Command being that ancient mode of 
converse, so much at that time in use, of conversing by 

II. Hut the Adversaries of Revelation, how easily 
soever they may be confuted, are not so easily silenced. 
They are ready to object, that we fly to the old exploded 
refuge of a TYPE, which the Author of the Grounds and 
Reasons of ihe Christian Religion hath shewn to be 
visionary and senseless.; the mere illogical whimsy of 
Cabalistic Jews. To this I answer, 

i. They are doubly mistaken. This interpretation is 
not founded in any typical sense whatsoever ; the person 
of Isaac on the Mount being no more a Type of Christ 
than the six letters that compose the name are a Type 
of him ; but only an arbitrary mark to stand for the idea 
of Christ, as that word does. So that their cry against 



Types, whatever force it may have, does not at all affect 
this interpretation. 

2. But, secondly, I say, A TYPE is neither visionary, 
nor senseless, notwithstanding the disgrace which this 
mode of information hath undergone by the mad abuses 
of Fanaticism and Superstition. On the contrary, I hold 
it to be a just and reasonable manner of denoting one 
tiling by another : not the creature of the imagination, 
made out of nothing to serve a turn ; but as natural and 
apposite a figure as any employed in human converse. 
For Types arose from that original mode of communi 
cation, the conversing by actions : the difference there 
is between these t\vo mod; s of information being only this, 
that, where the action is simply significative, it has no 
moral import: For example, when Ezekiel is bid to shave 
his beard, to weigh the hair in balances, to divide it into 
three parts, to burn one, to strike another with a knife, 
and to scatter the third part in the wind*, this action 
having no moral import is merely significative of infor 
mation given. But when the Israelites are commanded 
to take a male lamb without blemish, and the, whole assem 
bly of the congregation to hill it, and to sprinkle the 
blood upon the door-posts "\, this action having a moral 
import as being a religious Rite, and, at the same time, 
representative of something future, is properly, typical. 
Jleuce arose the mistake of the Interpreters of the 
Command to offer Isaac. These men supposing the 
action commanded to have a moral import, as being only 
for a trial of Abraham s faith ; and, at the same time, 
seeing in it the most exact resemblance of the death oi 
CHRIST, very wrongly concluded that action to be typical 
which was merely significative : and by this means, 
Reaving in the action a moral import, subjected it to all 
those cavils of infidelity, which, by taking away ail 
moral import, as not belonging to it, are here entirely 

* Ezek. v, 1,2. f Exod. xii. 5, 6, 7. 


But it being of the highest importance to Revelation 
in general, and not a little conducive to the support of 
our arguments for the Divine Legation of Moses in par 
ticular, to shew the logical truth and propriety of Types 
in action, and Secondary senses in speech, I shall take the 
present opportunity to sift this matter to the bottom. For 
having occasionally shewn, in several parts of the pre 
ceding Discourse, that the references in the LAW to the 
GOSPEL are in typical representations, and secondary 
senses ; and the truth of Christianity depending on the 
real relation (which is to be discovered by such refe 
rences) between the two Dispensations, it will be incum 
bent on me to prove the logical truth and propriety of 
TYPES in action, and SECONDARY SENSES in speech. 

And I enter on this subject with the greater pleasure, 
as one of the most plausible books ever written, or likely 
to be written, against Christianity, is intirely levelled at 
them. In this enquiry I shall pursue the same method 
I have hitherto taken with unbelieving Writers; examine 
only the grounds and principles on which they go ; and 
having removed and overthrown these, in as few words 

O 7 

as I am able, leave the superstructure to support itself, 
as it may. 


THE book I speak of is entitled, " A Discourse of 
the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion," 
written, as is generally supposed, by Mr. Collins ; a 
Writer, whose dexterity in the arts of Controversy was 
so remarkably contrasted by his abilities in reasoning and 
literature, as to be ever putting one in mind of what 
travellers tell us of the genius of the proper Indians, who, 
although the veriest bunglers in all the fine arts of 
manual operation, yet excel every body in slight of hand 
and the delusive feats of activity. 

The purpose of his book is to prove that JESUS was 

an impostor: and his grand argument stands thus, 

12 " JESUS 


" JESUS (as he shews) claims under the promised Mes 
siah of the Jews; and proposes himself as the Deliverer 
prophesied of in their sacred Books ; yet (as he attempts 
to shew) none of these Prophesies can be understood of 
JESUS but in a secondary sense only; now a secondary 
sense (as he pretends) is fanatical, chimerical, and con 
trary to all scholastic rules of interpretation: Conse 
quently, JESUS not being prophesied of in the Jewish 
Writings, his pretensions are false and groundless." 
His conclusion, the reader sees, stands on the joint sup 
port of these two Propositions, That there is no Jewish 
Prophecy which relates to JESUS in a primary sense; 
and That a secondary sense is enthusiastical and unscho*- 
lastic. If either of these fail, his phantom of a conclu 
sion sinks again into nothing. 

Though I shall not omit occasionally to confute the firs^ 
yet it is the falsehood of the second I am principally con 
cerned to expose That there are Jewish prophecies which 
relate to JESUS in their direct and primary sense, hath been 
proved with much force of reason and learning ; But, that 
secondary Prophecies are riot enthusiastical and umcho- 
lastic, hath not been shewn and insisted on, by the 
Writers on this Question, with the same advantage. The 
truth is, the nature of a DOUBLE SENSE in Prophecies 
hath been so little seen or enquired into, that some 
Divines, who agree in nothing else, have yet agreed to 
second this assertion of Mr. Collins, and with the same 
frankness and confidence to pronounce that a double 
sense is indeed enthusiastical and unscholastic. To put 
a stop therefore to this growing evil, sown first by 
SOCINUS, and since become so pestilent to Revelation, 
is not amongst the last purposes of the following dis 

I. It hath been shewn, that one of the most ancient 
and simple Modes of human converse was communicating 
the conceptions by an expressive ACTION. As this was 
of familiar use in Civil matters, it was natural to carry 



it into Religious. Hence, we see God giving his instruc 
tions to the Prophet, and the Prophet delivering God s 
commands to the People, in this very manner. Thus far 
the nature of the action, both in civil and religious 
matters, is exactly the same. 

But in Religion it sometimes happens that a STAND 
ING Information is necessary, and there the Action must 
be continually repeated : This is done by holding out 
the particular Truth (thus to be preserved) in a reli 
gious Rite. Here then the Action begins to change its 
nature; and, from a mere significative mark, of only arbi 
trary import like words or letters, becomes an action 
of moral import, and acquires the new name of TYPE. 
Thus GOD, intending to record the future sacrifice of 
CHRIST in Action, did it by the periodic Sacrifice of a 
lamb without blemixh. This was not merely and so 
DIRECTLY significative of CIIUIST (like the Command 
to Abraham); but being a religious Rite, and so having 
a moral import, it was typical, though NOT DIRECTLY 
significative, of him. The very same may be said of 
the Temporal rewards of the Law ; they were properly 
typical of the Spiritual rewards of the Gospel, and had 
a moral import of their own, as being the real sanction 
of the Law. 

Again, It hath been shewn*, how, in the gradual cul 
tivation of Speech, the expression by Action was im 
proved and refined into an ALLEGORY or Parable] in 
which the words carry a double meaning; having, besides 
their obvious sense which serves only for the Envelope, 
one more material, and hidden. With this figure of 
speech all the moral writings of Antiquity abound. But 
when this figure is transferred from Civil use to Religious, 
and employed in the writings of inspired Men, to convey 
information of particular circumstances in two distinct 
Dispensations, to a people who had an equal concern in 
both, it is then what we call a DOUBLE SENSE; and 

In the preceding volume. 



undergoes the very same change of its nature that an 
expressive action underwent when converted into a Type; 
that is, both the meanings, in the DOUBLE SENSE, are 
of moral import ; whereas in the Allegory , one only of 
the meanings is so : And this (which arises out of the 
very nature of their conversion, from Civil to Religious 
matters) is the only difference between expressive ac 
tions and TYPES; and between allegories and DOUBLE 


From hence it appears, that as TYPES are only reli 
gious expressive Actions, and DOUBLE SENSES only re 
ligious Allegories, and neither receive any change but 
what the very manner of bringing those Civil figures into 
Religion necessarily induces, they must needs have, in 
this their tralatitious state, the same LOGICAL FITNESS 
they had in their natural*. Therefore as expressive 
actions, and Allegories, in Civil discourses, are esteemed 
proper and reasonable modes of information, so must 
TYPES and DOUBLE SENSES in Religious ; for the end 
of both is the same, namely, COMMUNICATION OF 
KNOWLEDGE. The consequence of this is, that Mr. 
Collins s proposition, that a secondary or double sense is 
enthusiastical and unscholastic (the necessary support of 
his grand Argument) is entirely overthrown. 

This is the true and simple origin of TYPES and 
DOUBLE SENSES; which our adversaries, through igno 
rance of the rise and progress of Speech, and unacquain- 
tance with ancient Manners, have insolently treated as 
the issue of distempered brains, and the fondlings of 
Visionaries and Enthusiasts. 

II. Having thus shewn their logical propriety, or that 
they are rational Modes of information, I come now to 
vindicate their Religious use, and to shew that they are 
well suited to that Religion in which we find them em 
ployed. An Objection which, I conceive, may be made 
to this use, will lead us naturally into our Argument. 
* See note [X] at the end of this Book, 

VOL. VI. E The 


The objection is this: " It hath been shewn*, that these 
oblique Modes of converse, though at first invented out 
of necessity > for general information, were employed, at 
length, to a mysterious secretion of knowledge ; which 
though it might be expedient, useful, and even neces 
sary both in CIVIL MATTERS and in FALSE RELIGION, 
could never be so in MORAL MATTERS, and in THE 
RELIGION ; for this having nothing to hide from 
of its followers, Types and Double senses (the same 
mysterious conveyance of knowledge in Sacred matters, 
which Allegoric words or Actions are in Civil) were alto 
gether unfit to be employed in it." 

To this I answer, The JEWISH RELIGIOX, in which 
these Types and Sec-cndary .senses are to be found, was 
given to one single People only ; just as the CHRISTIAN 
is offered to all Mankind : Now the Christian, as Mr. 
Collins | himself labours to prove, professes to bo 
grounded on the Jewish. If therefore Christianity was 
not only professedly, but really grounded on Judaism 
(and the supposition is strictly logical in a defence of 
Types find Double semes, whose reality depends on the 
reality of that relation) then Judaism was preparatory 
to Christianity, and Christianity the ultimate end of 
Judaism : But it is not to be supposed that there should 
be an intire silence concerning this ultimate Religion 
during the preparatory, when the notice of it was not 
only highly proper, but very expedient : i . First, to draw 

* In the preceding volume. 

f " Christianity is founded on Judgum, and the New Testament 
" on the Old; and JESUS is the person said in the New Testament 
" to be promised in the Old, under the character of the MESSIAH of 
" the Jews, who, as such only, claims the obedience and submission 
" of the world. Accordingly it is the design of the authors of the 
" New, to prove all the parts of Christianity from the Old Testament, 
" which is said to contain the words of eternal life, and to represent 
* l JESUS and his apostles as fulfilling by their mission, doctrines, and 
" works, the predic lions of the Prophets, the historical parts of the 
" Old Testament, and the Jewish Law ; which last is expressly said 
" to prophesy of, or testify Christianity/ Grounds and Reasons, 
&c. pp. 4> 5- 



those under the preparatory Religion, by just degrees to 
the ultimate; a provision the more necessary, as the 
nature and genius of the two Religions were different, the 
one carnal, the other spiritual : 2. Secondly, to afford 
convincing evidence to future Ages, of the truth of that 
Ultimate Religion; which evidence, a circumstantial pre 
diction of its advent and nature so long beforehand, 
effectually does afford *. The Ultimate Religion there 
fore must have had some notice given of it, in the Pre 
paratory: and nothing was better fitted for this purpose 
than the hyperbolical genius of the Eastern Speech. 
Thus, when Isaiah says, Unto us a child is born, unto 
us a son is given, and the government shall be upon 
his shoulder : And his name shall be called, Wonderful, 
Counsellor, The Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, 
the Prince of Peace, Mr. Collins observes, it is the 
eastern hyperbole which prevents our seeing that a 
Jewish Monarch is literally and directly spoken of. 
Should we allow this, yet we still see, that such a lan 
guage was admirably fitted to connect together i\\ejirst 
and second Senses : the hyperbole becoming a simple 
speech, when transferred from a Jewish Monarch to the 
monarch of the world. 

Our next inquiry will be, in what manner this notice 
must needs be given. Now the nature of the thing shews 
us it could not be directly and openly; so as to be un 
derstood by the People, at the time of giving: because 
this would have defeated GOD S intermediate purpose; 
which was to train them, by a long discipline, under his 
preparatory Dispensation. For, this being a Religion 
founded only on temporal Sanctions, and burdened with 
.a minute and tiresome Ritual, had the People known it 
-to be only preparatory to another, founded on better 
Promises and easier Observances, they would never have 
born the yoke of the Law, but would have shaken off 
their subjection to Moses before the fulness of Time had 
* See note [Y] at the end of this Book. 

2 brought 


brought their spiritual Deliverer amongst them; as, with 
out this knowledge, they were but too apt to do, on every 
imaginary prospect of advantage. But St. CHRYSOSTOM 
will inforce this observation with more advantage. " Had 
" the Jews (says he) been taught from the beginning 
" that their Law was temporary and to have an end, 
" they would have certainly despised it. On this ac- 
" count, it seemed good to the divine Wisdom to throw 
" a veil of obscurity over the Prophecies which related 
" to the Christian Dispensation *." This information, 
therefore, was to be delivered with caution ; and con 
veyed under the covert language of their present Eco 
nomy. Hence arose the fit and necessary use of TYPES 
and SECONDARY SENSES. For the only safe and lasting 
means of conveyance were their PUBLIC RITUAL, and 
action, and an Allegoric speech, when thus employed, 
had all the secrecy that the occasion required. We 
have observed, that in the simpler use of speaking by 
Action j the Action itself hath no moral import : and so, 
the information having but one moral meaning, that 
which it conveys is clear and intelligible. But where a 
Rite of Religion is used for this Speaking action, there 
the ation hath a moral import ; and so the information 
having two moral meanings, that which it conveys is 
more obscure and mysterious. Hence it appears that 
this mode of speaking by action, called a TYPE, is 
exactly fitted for the information in question. Just so it 
is again with the SECONDARY SENSE ; In the mere 
allegory, the representing image has no moral import : 
in the secondary seme, for a contrary reason (which the 
very term imports), the representing image hath a moral 
import ; and so, acquires the ^me fitting obscurity with 
information by Types. For the typical Ritual, and the 
double Prophecy, had each its obvious sense in the 
present nature and future fortune of the Jewish Religion 
* Jiomilia prima, De propbetarum obscuritate. 



and Republic. And here we are easily led into the 
essential difference (so much to the honour of Revela 
tion) between the Pagan Oracles or Prophecies, and the 
Jewish. The obscurity of the Pagan arose from the 
ambiguity, equivocation or jargon OF EXPRESSION ; the 
obscurity of the Jewish from the figurative represen 
tation OF THINGS. The First (independent of any 
other Religion) proceeded from ignorance of futurity ; 
the Latter, dependent on the Christian, proceeded from 
the necessity that those to whom the Prophecies were 
delivered should not have too full a knowledge of them. 

Dr. Middleton, indeed, would fain persuade us, that 
the Oracles, or, as he chuses to call them, the Prophecies 
of the Pythian Apollo, were neither better nor worse, 
but exactly of the same absurd construction with the 
Script tire Prophecies. He would hardly venture to 
controvert what I have said of their logical fitness and 
propriety, as a mode of information in the abstract, 
because this would shew him ignorant of the nature and 
progress of human converse. Much less, I suppose, 
would he say, that this mode of informatiqn was not 
suited to the genius of the Jewish Religion ; since he 
owns that to be only a preparatory System calculated to 
open and to prepare the way for one more perfect; and 
consequently, that it must be so contrived as to connect, 
and at the same time to hide from the vulgar eye, the 
two parts of the Dispensation, and the relation they 
have to one another. Now there is no conceivable way 
of doing this but by types and secondary senses. What 
then occasioned this insult upon them ? That which sup 
ports all our free Writers in their contemptuous treat 
ment of Religion, their mistaking the ABUSE of the tiling 
for the thing ITSELF ; and giving the interpretations 
of men, or the Doctrines of Churches, for Articles of 
faith or Scripture history. What hath been here said 
will shew the extreme weakness of this ingenious man s 
parallel between the Scripture Prophecies and the Oracles 

K 3 f 


of the Pythian Apollo. " The PROPHECIES of the Py- 
" thian Apollo (says he) were indeed obscure, equivocal 
" and ambiguous, admitting not only different but con- 
" trary senses ; so that the character here given of the 
" Scripture Prophecies was undoubtedly true of them, 
" that no event could restrain them to one determinate 
" sense, when they ivere. originally capable of many. For 
" if the obvious sense failed, as it often did, to the ruin 
" of those who acted upon it, there was another always 
" in reserve, to secure the veracity of the Oracle : till 
" this very character of its ambiguous and senigmatical 
" senses, confirmed by constant observation, gradually 
" sunk its credit, and finally detected the imposture*." 
The Prophecies of the Pythian Apollo were obscure, 
equivocal arid ambiguous. And this (says he) was the 
character of the Scripture Prophecies. Just otherwise, 
as is seen above. Scripture Prophecies were obscure] 
but the obscurity arose neither from equivocation nor 
ambiguity (which two qualities proceed from the EX 
PRESSION) but from the figurative representation of 
THINGS. So that the obscurity, which the Pythian 
Oracle and the Scripture Prophecies had in common,, 
arising from the most different grounds, the character 
given of the Oracles, that no event could restrain them 
to one determinate sense when they were originally capa 
ble of many, by no means belongs to the Scripture Pro 
phecies, whatever the men he writes against (who appear 
to know as little of the DOUBLE SENSE of Prophecies as 
himself) might imagine. For though equivocal and am 
biguous EXPRESSION may make a speech or writing, 
where the objects are unconfined, capable of many 
senses, yet a figurative representation of THINGS can 
give no more senses than two to the obscurest Prophecy. 
Hence it will follow, that while the expedient in support 
ing the Pythian Oracles, by having a sense always in 

* Examination of tfie Bishop of London s Discourses on Pro 
phecy, &c. pp. 8g, yo. 


reserve to satisfy the inquirer, would gradually sink their 
credit, and finally detect the imposture; the discovery 
of a SECONDARY 5EXSE of Prophecy, relative to the 
completory Dispensation, will necessarily tend to confirm 
and establish the divine origin of Scripture Prophecy. 

Such was the wonderful economy of divine Wisdom, 
in connecting together two dependent Religions, the parts 
of one grand Dispensation : by this means, making one 
preparatory of the other ; and each mutually to reflect 
light upon the other. Hence we see the desperate 
humour of that learned man, though very zealous Chris 
tian *, who, because most of the prophecies relating to 
JESUS, in the Old Testament, are of the nature described 
above, took it into his head that the Bible was corrupted 
by the enemies of JESUS. Whereas, on the very supposi 
tion of a mediate and an ultimate Religion, which this 
good man held, the main body of Prophecies in the Old 
Testament relating to the New must, according to all 
our ideas of fitness and expediency, needs be prophecies 
with a DOUBLE SENSE. l>ut it is the usual support of 
folly to throw its distresses upon knavery. And thus, as 
we observed, the Mahometan likewise, who pretends to 
claim under the Jewish religion, not iinding the doctrine 
of & future state of rewards ami punishments in the Law, 
is as positive that the Jews have corrupted their own 
scriptures in pure spite to his great Prophet f. 

III. Having thus shewn the reasonable use and great 
expediency of these modes of sacred information, under 
the Jewish Economy ; the next question is, Whether 
they be indeecf there. This we shall endeavour to shew. 
And that none of the common prejudices may lie 
against our reasoning, the example given shall be of 
TYPES and DOUBLE SENSES employed even in subjects 
relating to the Jewish dispensation only. 

i. The whole ordinance of the paw over was a TYPE 
of the redemption from Egypt. The striking the blood 

* Mr. Whision. f See B0te [ z ] at tlie ea<i of this Book. 

E 4 oa 


on the side-posts, the eating flesh with unleavened bread 
and bitter herbs, and in a posture of departure and ex 
pedition, were all significative of their bondage and 
deliverance. This will admit of no doubt, because the 
Institutor himself has thus explained the Type And 
thou shalt shew thy son (says he) in that day, say 
ing, This is done because of that which the Lord did 
unto me when 1 came forth out of Egypt. And it shall be 
for a sign untothee upon thine hand, and for a memorial 
between thine eyes ; that the Lord s law may be in thy 
mouth : for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought 
thee out of Egypt. Thou shalt therefore keep this ordi 
nance in his season from year to year *. As therefore it 
was of the genius of these holy Rites to be Typical or 
significative of God s past, present, and future dispen 
sations to his people, we cannot in the least doubt, but 
that Moses, had he not been restrained by those im 
portant considerations explained above, would have told 
them that the sacrifice of the lamb without blemish was a 
Type, a sign or memorial of THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 

2. With regard to DOUBLE SENSES, take this instance 
from Joel : who, in his prediction of an approaching 
ravage by Locusts, foretells likewise, in the same words, 
a succeeding desolation by the Assyrian army. For we 
are to observe that this was GOD S method both in 
warning and in punishing a sinful people. Thus, when 
the seven nations for their exceeding wickedness were to 
be exterminated, GOD promises his chosen people to 
send hornets before them, which should drhe out the 
Hivite, the Canaa trite, and the Hittite from before 
them f. Now Joel, under one and the same Prophecy, 


* Exod. xiii. 8, & seq. 

f Exod. xxiii. 23. This, the author of the book called the 
" Wisdom of Solomon" admirably paraphrases:" For it was 
" thy will to destroy by the hands of our fathers both those old 
" inhabitants of thy holy land, whom thou hatedst for doing most 
" odious works of witchcrafts, and wicked sacrifices; and also those 

merciless murderers of children, and devourers of man s flesh, 



contained in the first and second Chapters of his book, 
foretells, as we say, both these plagues ; the locusts 
in the primary sense, and the Assyrian army in the 
secondary "Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl 
" all ye drinkers of wine, because of the new wine, for it 
" is cut off from your mouth. For a nation is come up 
" upon my land, strong, and without number, whose 
" teeth are the teeth of a lion, and he hath the cheek- 
" teeth of a great lion. He hath laid my vine waste, 
" and barked my fig-tree : he hath made it clean bare, 
" and cast it away : the branches thereof are made 
" white. . .The field is wasted, the land mourneth; for 
" the corn is wasted : the new wine is dried up, the 
" oil languisheth. Be ye ashamed, O ye husbandmen ; 
" howl, O ye vine-dressers, for the wheat and for the 
" barley ; because the harvest of the field is perished*. 
" Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in 
" my holy mountain : Let all the inhabitants of the 
" land tremble : for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is 
" nigh at hand ; A day of darkness and of gloominess, 
" a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning 
" spread upon the mountains : a great people and a 
" strong ; there hath not been ever the like A fire de- 
" voureth before them, and behind them a flame burneth : 
" the land is as the garden of Eden before them, and 
" behind them a desolate wilderness ; yea, and nothing 

" shall 

" and the feasts of blood, with their priests out of the midst of their 

" idolatrous crew, and the parents that killed, with their own hands, 

" souls destitute of help : That the land winch thou esteemedst 

" above all other might receive a worthy colony of GOD S children. 

tl Nevertheless even those thou sparedstas men, and didst send wasps, 

(t forerunners of thine host, to destroy them by little and little. Not 

" that thou wast unable to bring the ungodly under the hand of the 

u righteous in battle, or to destroy them at once with cruel beasts t 

" or with one rough word: But executing thy judgments upon them 

" by little and little, thou gavest them place of repentance, riot 

" being ignorant that they were a naughty generation, and that 

u their malice was bred in them, and that their cogitation would 

f never be changed/ Chap, xii. ver. 3, & seq. 

* Chap. i. ver. 5, seq. 


" shall escape them. The appearance of them is as 
" the appearance of horses ; and as horsemen, so shall 
" they run. Like the noise of chariots on the tops of 
u mountains shall they leap, like the noise of a flame 
" of fire that devoureth the stubbie, as a strong people 
" set in battle array. Before their face the people shall 
" be much pained : all faces shall gather blackness. 
" They shall run like mighty men, they shall climb the 
" wall like men of war; and they shall march every one 
" on his ways, and they shall not break their ranks. 
" Neither shall one thrust another, they shall walk every 
" one in his path : and when they fall upon the sword, 
" they shall not be wounded. They shall run to and 
* fro in the city ; they shall run upon the wall, they 
" shall climb up upon the houses ; they shall enter in at 
** the windows like a thief. The earth shall quake before 
- them, the heavens shall tremble; the sun and the 
" moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their 
" shining*." 

The fine conversion of the subjects is remarkable. 
The prophecy is delivered in the first chapter, Awake,. 
1/e drunkards, &c. and repeated in the second Blow ye 
the trumpet in Zion, Sic. In the first chapter, the 
LOCUSTS are described as a people ;For a nation is 
come np upon nn* land, strong and without number. But, 
that we may not be mistaken in the PRIMARY sense, 
namely the plague of locusts, the ravages described are 
the ravages of insects : They lay waste the vine, they 
bark the Jig-tree, make the branches clean bare, and 
wither the corn and fruit-trees. In the second chapter, 
the hostile PEOPLE are described as locusts: AS THE 


pearance of them is AS the appearance af horses, and AS 
horsemen so shall they run, AS a strong people set in 
battle array. They shall run LIKE mighty men, they 
shall climb the wall LIKE men of war. But that we may 

* Chap. ii. ver. i to 10. 



not mistake the SECONDARY sense, namely the invasion 
of a foreign enemy, they are compared, we see, to a 
mighty army. This art, in the contexture of the Pro 
phecy, is truly divine ; and renders all chicane to evade 
a double sense ineffectual. For in some places of this 
Prophecy, dearth by insects must needs be understood ; 
in others, desolation by war. So that both senses are of 
necessity to be admitted. And here let me observe, that 
had the Commentators on this Prophecy but attended to 
the nature of the double sense, they would not have suffered 
themselves to be so embarrassed ; nor have spent so much 
time in freeing the Prophet from an imaginary embarras 
(though at the expence of the context) on account of the 
same Prophecy s having in one part that signification 
primary -, which, in another, is secondary. A circumstance 
so far from making an inaccuracy, that it gives the highest 
elegance to the discourse ; and joins the tico senses so 
closely as to obviate all pretence for a division, to the in 
jury of the Holy Spirit. Here then we have a DOUBLE 
SENSE, not arising from the interpretation of a single 
verse, and so obnoxious to mistake, but of a whole and 
very large descriptive Prophecy. 

But as this species of double prophecy, when confined 
to the events of one single Dispensation, takes off the 
most plausible objection to primary and secondary senses 
in general, it may not be improper to give another in 
stance of it, which shall be taken from a Time when one 
would least expect to find a double prophecy employed, I 
mean, under the Gospel Dispensation. I have observed, 
somewhere or other, that the ECONOMY OF GRACE 
having little or nothing to hide or to shadow out, like the 
LAW, it had small occasion for typical Rites or Cele 
brations, or for Prophecies with a double sense; and that 
therefore they are not to be expected, nor indeed are they 
to be found, under the Gospel. 

Yet the example I am about to give is an illustrious 

exception to this general truth. The explanation of this 

2 example 


example will rectify a great deal of embarras and mistake 
concerning it, and, at the same time, support the general 
Truth. The Prophecy I mean, is that in which Jesus 
not only under the same ideas, but in one and the same 
Prediction, as it is recorded, in nearly the same terms, by 
Matthew, Mark, and Luke; though omitted by St. John, 
for the reason hereafter to be given. 

But to comprehend the full import of this Prophecy, 
it will be proper to consider the occasion of it. Jesus, 
after having warmly upbraided the Scribes and Pharisees 
whom he found in the Temple, with their superstitious 
abuses of the Law ; with their aversion to be reformed ; 
and their obstinate rejection of their promised Messiah ; 
left them with a dreadful denunciation of the ruin* then 
banging over their Civil and Religious Policy. His Dis 
ciples, who followed him through the Temple, greatly 
.affected with these threats, and yet possessed with the 
national prejudice of the Eternity of the Law, pointed as 
he passed along, at the Temple Buildings, and desired 
him to observe the stupendous solidity and magnificence 
of the Work. As much as to say, " Here are no marks 
of that speedy destruction which you have just now pre 
dicted : on the contrary, this mighty Mass seems calcu 
lated to endure till the general dissolution of all things." 
To which, Jesus, understanding their thoughts, replied, 
that in a very little time there should not be left one stone 
upon another, of all the wonders they saw before them. 
And from thence takes occasion to prophesy of the speedy 
destruction of the Jewish Nation. But as the bare pre 
diction of the ruin of that splendid Economy would be 
likely to scandalize these carnal-minded men, while they 
saw notiiing erected in its stead, by their Messiah and 
Deliverer, it seemed good to divine Wisdom to repre 
sent this destruction under the image of their Messiah s 
coming to execute judgment on the devoted City, and of 

* Matt. 3xiii. Mark xii. 34, Luke xvi. 25. 



his raising a new Economy on its ruin ; as was done by 
the establishment of the Christian Policy *. 

But yet, as this was to be unattended with the circum 
stances of exterior grandeur, He relieves the picture of the 
Church-militant, erected on his coming TO JUDGE 
JERUSALEM, with all the splendours of the Church- 
triumphant, which were to be displayed at his second 
coming TO JUDGE THE WORLD. Arid this, which was 
so proper for the ornament, and useful for the dignity of 
the Scene, was necessary for the completion of the Sub 
ject, which was a full and entire view of the Dispensation of 
Grace. Thus, as JOEL in one and the same descrip 
tion had combined the previous ravages of the Locusts 
with the succeeding devastations of the Assyrians, so 
here, JESUS hath embroidered into one Piece the inter 
mediate judgment of the Jews, and the finat judgment 
of mankind f . 

Let us now see what there was in the notions and lan 
guage of the Jewish People, that facilitated the easy in 
troduction of the secondary sense ; and gave the style, 
which was proper to that sense, an expressive elegance 
when applied to the primary. 

The Jews, besotted with their fancied Eternity of the 
Law, had entertained a notion that the destruction of 
Jerusalem was to be immediately followed with the de* 
struction of the World. This made the closeness in the 
connexion between the primary and secondary sense of 
the descriptive prophecy, easy and natural ; and as-it 
made the two destructions scarce dividual, so it left no 
room to distinguish, in any formal manner, between the 
Jirst and second coming in Judgment. f r . 

The old prophetic language was of equal use and ad 
vantage to interweave the two senses into one another, 
which the, not ion here mentioned had drawn together an^i 
combined. The change of Magistracy, the fall of King- 

* See Julian, or a Discourse concerning his attempt to rebuild the 

f Matt. xxiv. Mark xiii. Luke xxi. 



doms, and the revolutions of States, are described, in the 
old language of inspiration, by disasters in the Heavens, 
by the fall of Stars, and by eclipses of the greater Lumi 
naries. This admirably served the purpose of conveying 
both events under the same set of images ; indeed, under 
one and the same description ; namely, the destruction 
of Jerusalem in the FIGURATIVE sense; and the de 
struction of the world in the LITERAL. The sun shall 
be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light : and 
the stars of heaven shall foil, and the powers that are 
in heaven shall be shaken. And they shall see the Son of 
man coming in the Clouds with great power and glory*. 

So that we see, the representation of a double seme in 
this Prophecy hath all the ease, and strength, and art, 
which we can conceive possible to enter into a sacred in 
formation of this nature. And the close contexture of 
its parts is so far from obscuring any thing in the two 
great correlative pictures, portrayed upon it, that it serves 
to render each more distinct, and better defined. Diffe 
rent indeed in this from most of the Jewish Prophecies 
of the same kind : And the reason of the difference is 
obvious. In the Jewish Prophecies, the secondary sense, 
relating to matters in another Dispensation, was of neces 
sity to be left obscure, as unsuitable to the knowledge of 
the time in which the Prophecy was delivered. Whereas 
the first and secondary senses of the Prophecy before 
us, were equally objective to the contemplation of Christ s 
Disciples ; as the two capital parts of the Dispensation 
to which they were now become subject. 

But it will be said, u Tiiat before all this pains had 
been taken to explain the beauties of the double sense, 
we should have proved the existence of it ; since, accord 
ing to our own account of the matter, the magnificent 
terms employed, which are the principal mark of a 
SECONDARY sense, are the common prophetic Language 
to express the subject of the PRIMARY : And because, 

* Mark xiii. 2426. Matt, xxiv, 29, 30. 



when Jesus, in few words, repeats the substance of this 
Prophecy to the High- Priest, on the like occasion for 
which he delivered it at large to his Disciples, he de 
scribes the destruction of Jerusalem in those high terms 
from whence the SECONDARY sense is inferred: for when 
Jesus was accused of threatening, or of designing to 
destroy the Temple, and was urged by the High- Priest to 
make his defence, he says -Hereafter shall ye see the 
Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and 
coming in the clouds of heaven* ; which words the con 
text necessarily confines to his coming in judgement on 

To this I answer, That it was not for fear of being put 
to the proof, that it was taken for granted that this Pro 
phecy had a double seme, a primary and a secondary ; 
because it is only quoting a passage or two in it, to 
$hew that it must necessarily be confessed to have both. 

1. That Jesus prophesies of the destruction of Jeru 
salem, appears from the concluding words recorded by all 
the three Evangelists Verily, I say unto you, that THUS 
GENERATION shall not pass away till ALL these things 
be done or fulfilled^. Hence, by the way, let me observe, 
that this fulfilling in the primary sense being termed the 

fulfilling all, seems to be the reason why St. John, who 
wrote his Gospel after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
hath omitted to record this Prophecy of his Master. 

2. That Jesus at the same time speaks of the destruc 
tion of the World, at his coming to judge it, appears 
likewise from his own words recorded by the same 
Evangelists But of that day ami hourknwveth no man; 
m not the Angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the 
Father^. For if the Whole be to be understood only 
of one single event, then do these two texts expressly 
contradict one another; the first telling us that the event 
should come to pass near the close of that very genera* 

Matt xxvi, 64. Mark xiv, 62, Luke xxii. 6y. 
t Mattxxiv. 34. Mark xiii. 30. Jjalte xxi, 32, 

Mark xiii, 



tion ; the latter telling us that the time is unknown to all 
men, nay even to the Angels and to the Son himself: - 
then does the last quoted text expressly contradict the 
Prophecy of Daniel *, that very Prophecy to which 
Jesus all the. way refers; for in that prophecy, the day 
and hour, that is, the precise time of the destruction of 
Jerusalem, is minutely foretold. 

Hence it follows that this famous Prophecy hath 
indeed a DOUBLE SENSE, the one primary, and the other 

It is true, the infant-Church saw the destruction of the 
world so plainly foretold in this Prophecy, as to suffer 
an error to creep into it, of the speedy and instant con 
summation of all things. This, St. Paul found necessary 
to correct Now I beseech you, says he, that ye be not 
soon shaken in mind, or troubled, as that the day of 
Christ is at hand, &c.| And it was on this account, 
I suppose, that St. Luke, who wrote the latest of the 
three Evangelists, records this Prophecy in much lower 
terms than the other two, and entirely omits the words in 
the text quoted above, which fixes the secondary sense of 
the Prophecy of that day and hour, Sec. 

If St. Paul exhorted his followers not to be shaken 
in mind on this account ; his fellow-labourer St. Peter, 
when he had in like manner reproved the scoffers, who 
said, where is the promise of his coming ? went still 
further, and, to shew his followers that the Church was 
to be of long continuance here on earth, explains to 
them the nature of that evidence which future times 
were to have of the truth of the Gospel ; an evidence 
even superior to that which the primitive times enjoyed 
of MIRACLES J; We have also a more sure word of 
PROPHECY ; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as 
unto a light which shineth in a dark place, until the day 
dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts^. This 

* Chap. viii. ver. 13, 14. f 2 - Thess. ii. i. & seq, 

J 2 Peter, i. 17. Ver. 19. 



evidence of PROPHECY is justly qualified a more sure 
word*, when compared to MIRACLES, whose demon 
strative evidence is confined to that age in which the 
power of them was bestowed upon the Church : whereas 
the prophecies here meant, namely, those of St. Paul and 
St. Johnf, concerning the GREAT APOSTASY, were always 
fulfilling even to the last consummation of all things ; 
and so, affording this demonstrative evidence to the men 
of all generations. 

However, if from this prophecy the first Christians 
drew a wrong conclusion, it was not hy the fault cf the 
Divine Prophet, but their own. Jewish Tradition might 
at first mislead the followers of Jesus to believe that the 
destruction of the World was very soon to follow the 
destruction of Jerusalem : But these men soon put off 
Tradition, with the Law : And Scripture, which was 
then recommended to them as their only study, with 
the DOUBLE SENSES with which it abounds, might easily 
have led them to a distinction of times in this Prophecy, 
a Prophecy formed, as they must needs see, upon the 
ancient models. 

But as Providence is always educing good out of evil 
(though neither for this, nor any other reason, is evil 
ever connived at by the disciples of Christ, as appears 
from the conduct of St. Paul, just mentioned above) this 
error was fruitful of much service to truth. It nourished 
and increased a spirit of piety, seriousness, and chanty, 
which wonderfully contributed to the speedy propagation 
of the Gospel. 

Before I conclude, let me just observe (what I have 
always principally in view), that this explanation of the 
Prophecy obviates all those impious and absurd insinu 
ations of licentious men, as if Jesus was led either by 
craft or enthusiasm, either by the gloominess of his own 

* Bt&MPTffefr, more -firm, constant, *nd durable. 

f See Sir Isaac Newton on the Prophecies, c. i. of his Observations 
upon the Apocalypse of St. John. 

VOL. VI. F ideas, 


ideas, or by his knowledge of the advantage of inspiring 
such into his Followers, to prophesy of the speedy 
destruction of the World. 

But by strange ill fortune even some Believers, as 
we havfc observed, are come at length to deny the very 
existence of double semex and secondary prophecies. A 
late writer hath employed some pages to proclaim his 
utter disbelief of all such fancies. I shall .take the liberty 
to examine this bold rectifier of prejudices : not for any 
thing he hath opposed to the Principles here laid down ; 
for I dare say these were never in his thoughts ; but only 
to shew, that all he hath written is wide of the purpose; 
though, to say the truth, no wider than the notions of 
those whom lie opposes ; men who contend for Types 
and Secondary senses in as extravagant a way as lie 
argues against them; that is, such who take a handle 
from the doctrine of double senses to give a loose to the 
extravagancies of a vague imagination : consequently his 
arguments, which are aimed against their very being and 
use, hold only against their abuse. And that abuse, 
which others indeed have urged as a proof against the 
uxt, he sets himself to* confute: a mighty undertaking! 
; and then mistakes his reasoning tor a confutation of 
the use. 

His Argument against double semes in Prophecies, as 
-for as I understand it, may be divided into two parts, 
\. Replies to the reasoning of others for double, senses. 
-2. liis GWQ reasoning against them. With his Replies 
I have nothing to do (except where something of argu- 
meat -against the reality of double senses is contained) 
because they arc replies to no reasonings of mine, nor to 
any that I approve. I have only therefore to consider 
what he hath to say against the thing itself. 

\. His first argument against more senses than one, 
is as follows " Supposing that the opinion or judgment 

Tlui Principles and Conn^xiruj of Natural and Revealed Religion, 
considered, p, 421* by Dr. Svkes. 

" of 


" of the Prophet or Apostle is not to be considered in 
" matters of Prophecy more than the judgment of a 
" mere amanuensis is, and that the point is not what 
" the opinion of the amanuensis was, but what the inditcr 
" intended to express; yet it must be granted, that if 
" God had any views to some remoter events, at the, 
" same time that the words which were used were 
u equally applicable to, and designed to express, nearer 
" events : those remoter events, as well as the nearer, 
" were in the intention of GOD : And if both the nearer 
" and remoter events were equally intended by God in 
" any Proposition, then the LITERAL SENSE OF THEM 


" APART. BUT BOTH TOGETHER must be the full mean- 
" ing of such passages." p. 219. 

-~-Tlien the literal sense of them is not the one nor the 
other singly and apart, but both of them together, e. i. e. 
if both together make up but one literal sense, then tnere 
is neither a secondary nor a double sense : and so there is 
an end of the controversy. A formidable Adversary 
truly ! He threatens to overthrow the thing, and gives 
us an argument against the propriety of the name. Let 
him but allow his adversaries that a nearer and a remoter 
event are both the subjects of one and the same Predic 
tion, and, I suppose, it will be in different to them whether 
he call it, \\ith them, a Prophecy of a double and figura-* 
tive sense, or they call it, with him, a Prophecy of a single 
literal sense : And he may be thankful for so much com 
plaisance ; for it is plain, they have the better of him 
even in the propriety.} of the name. It is confessed that 
GOD, in these prediction?, might have views to nearer 
and remoter events : now those nearer and remoter 
events were events under two different Dispensations, 
the Jewish and the Christian. The Prediction is ad 
dressed to the Jews, who had not only a more immediate 
concern with the first, but, at the time of giving the 
Prophecy, were not to be let into the secrets of the 

F 2 other: 


other : Hence th^ prediction of the nearer event was 
properly the literal or primary sense, as given for the 
present infoimation of GOD S Servants; and the more 
remote event for their future information, and so was as 
properly the secondary sense, called with great propriety 
Jig lira tree, because conveyed under the terms which 
predicted the nearer event. But I hope a jirst and a 
second, a literal and a jigurative, may both together at 
least make up a DOUBLE SENSE. SELDEN understood 
this matter better, when he said, " The Scripture may 
" have more senses besides the literal, because GOD 
u understands all things at once ; but a man s writing 
" has but one true sense, which is that which the author 
<c meant when he writ it*." 

2. His second argument runs thus, " WORDS are 
<c the signs of our thoughts, and therefore stand for the 
" ideas in the mind of him that uses them. If then 
* words arc made use of to signify two or more things 
" at the same time, their significancy is really lost, and 
" it is impossible to understand the real certain intention 
( of him that uses them. Were GOD therefore to dis- 
" cover any thing to mankind by any written Revelation, 
" and were he to make use of such TERMS as stand 
<: for ideas in men s minds, he must speak to them so as 
" to be understood by them. They must have in their 
u minds the ideas which God intended to excite in them, 
" or else it would be in vain to attempt to make dis- 
{{ coveries of his Will ; and the TERMS made use of must 
<; be such as were wont to raise such certain ideas, or 
" else there could be no. written Revelation. The true 
" sense therefore of ANY PASSAGE of Scripture can be 
" but ONE; or if it be said to contain more senses than 
" one, if such multiplicity be not revealed, the Revelation 
" becomes useless, because .unintelligible." pp. 222, 223. 

Men may talk what they please of the obscurity of 
Writers who iiave two wnses, but it has been my fortune 
* Table Talk. 



to meet with it much oftener in those who have none. 
Our Reasoner has here mistaken the very Question, 
which is, whether a Scripture PROPOSITION (for all 
Prophecies are reducible to Propositions) he capable 
of two senses ; and, to support the negative, he labours 
to prove that WORDS OR TERMS can have but one. // 
then WORDS arc made use of to signify two or more 
THINGS at the same time, their rigtftfaa&fjf is really 
lost such TERMS as stand for ideas in mens minds 
TERMS made use of must be such aft are wont to raise 
such certain ideas All this is readily allowed ; but how 
wide of the purpose, may be seen by this instance : 
Jacob says, I will go down into Sheol unto my son mourn 
ing. Now if SHEOL signify in the ancient Hebrew, 
only the Grave, it would be abusing the TERM to make 
it signify likewise, with . the vulgar Latin, in infernuuiy 
because if WORDS (as he says) be made to signify two or 
more things at the same time, their signijicancy is lost. 
But when this PROPOSITION of the Psalmist comes to be 
interpreted, Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hell [SiiEoi] 
neither wilt thou suffer thy holy one to see corruption ; 
though it literally signifies security from the curse of 
the Law, upon tra-nsgressors, viz. immature death, yet 
it is very reasonable to understand it in a spiritual sense, 
of the resurrection of CHRIST from the dead ; in which, 
the words or terms translated Soul and Hell, arc left in 
the meaning they bear in the Hebrew tongue, of Body 
and Grave. 

But let us suppose our Reasoner to mean that a 
PROPOSITION is not capable of fico senses, as perhaps he 
did in his confusion of ideas, for notwithstanding his 
express words to the contrary, before he conies to the 
end of his argument, he talks of the true sense of ANY 
PASSAGE being but one ; and then his assertion must be, 
That if one Proposition have two Senses, its sigrujicancy 
is really lost ; and that it is impossible to understand 
:the real certain intention \ of him that use* them; co; - 

F 3 sequentiy 


sequent ly Revelation will become useless, because unhi* 

Now this I will take the liberty to deny. In the fol 
lowing instances, a single Proposition was intended by 
the writers and speakers to have a double sense. The 
poet Virgil says, 

" Talia, per clypetim Volcani, dona parentis 
" Miratur : rerumque ignarus, imagine gatidet, 

" TUM* " 

The last line has these two senses : First, that JEneas 
bore on his shoulders a shield, on which was engraved a 
prophetic picture of the fame and fortunes of his posterity: 
Secondly, that under the protection of that piece of 
armour he established their fame and fortunes, and was 
enabled to make a settlement in Latium, which proved 
the foundation of the Roman empire f. 

Here then is a double sense, which, I believe, none who 
have any taste of Virgil will deny. The preceding verse 
introduces it with great art, 

" Miratur, rerumque ignarus imagine gaudet :" 
and prepares us for something mysterious, and hid 
behind the letter. 

On Peter s refusing to eat of elean and unclean meats 
promiscuously, in the vision presented to him, the Holy 
Spirit says, What Gad hath cleansed, that call not thou 
common J. The single proposition is, That which God 
hath cleansed is not common or impure , but no one 
who reads this story can doubt of its having this double 
sense : i . That the distinction between clean and unclean 
meats icas to be abolished. 2. And That the Gentiles 
were to be called into the Church of CHRIST. Here 
then the true sense of these PASSAGES is not one, but 
two: and yet the intention or meaning is not, on this 

* yEneid. lib. viii. in fin. 
t See Note [AA] at the eiid of this Book, I Acts x. 15. 



account, the least obscured or lost, or rendered doubtful 
or unintelligible. 

He will say, perhaps, " that the very nature of the 
subject, in both cases, determines the two senses here ex- , 
plained." And does he think, we will not say the same 
of double senses in the Prophecies ? But he seems to take 
it for granted, tiiat Judaism and Christianity have no kind 
of relation to one another: Why else would he bring, in 
discredit of a double sense, th< se t vo verses of Virgil; 
" Hi motus animorum, atque haec certaimna tanta 
. " Pulveris exigui jactu composta quiescunt." 
On which he thus descants The words are determi 
nate and clear* Suppose new a man having occasion to 
speak of intermitting Jtroers and the ruffle of a mans 
spirits, and the easy cure of the disorder by pulverized 
bark, c. p. 225. To make this pertinent, we must 
suppose no more relation between the fortunes of the 
Jjewish Church and the Christian, than between a battle 
of Bees 9 and the tumult of the animal Spirits: if this 
were not his meaning, it will be hard to know what was, 
wnkss to shew his happy talent at a parody. 

But as he seems to delight in classical authorities, I 
will give him one not quite so absurd; where he himself 
shall confess that a double meaning does in fact run through 
one of the finest Odes of Antiquity. Horace thus ad 
dresses a crazy ship in which his friends had embarked 
for the yEgean sea: 

O navis, referent in mare te noyi 
Pluctus! 6 quid agis ? fortiter pccupa 
Portum: nonne vides ut 

Nudum remigio latus*, &c. 

In the first and primary sense, he describes the dangers 
of his friends in a weak unmanned vessel, and in a tem 
pestuous sea: in the secondary,, the dangers of the Re 
public in entering into a new civil war, after all the losses 
and disasters of the old. As to the secondary sense, 

* Hor. Od. lib.i. Od. 14, 

r 4 which 


which is ever the most questionable and obscure, we have 
the testimony of early Antiquity delivered by Quintilian: 
As to the primary seme, the following will r;ot suffer us 
to doubt of it: 

Nuper sollicitum quae mini tedium, 

Nunc desiderium, curaque non levis, 
Interfusa nitentes 

Vites aequora Cycladas. 

But there being, as we have shewn above, two kinds of 
allegories; (the first, viz. the proper allegory; which 
hath but one real sense, because the literal meaning, serving 
only for the envelope, and without a moral Import*, is 
not to be reckoned ; the second, the improper, which hath 
two, because the literal meaning is of moral import; and 
of this nature are Prophecies with a double sense) the 
Critics on Horace, not apprehending the different natures 
of these two kinds, have engaged in very warm contests. 
The one side seeing some parts of the Ode to have a 
necessary relation with a real ship, contend for its being 
purely historical; at the head of these is Tanaquil Faber, 
who first started this criticism, after fifteen centuries 
peaceable possession of the Allegory : the other side, on 
the authority of Quintilian, who gives the ode as an ex 
ample of this figure, will have it to be purely allegoricaL 
Whereas it is evidently both one and the other ; of the 
nature of the second kind of allegories, which have a 
double, sense; and this double sense, which does not in the 
least obscure the meaning, the learned reader may see, 
adds infinite beauty to the whole turn of the Apostrophe. 
Had it been purely historical, nothing had been more 
cold or trifling; had it been purely allegorical, nothing 
less natural or gracious, on account of the enormous 
length into which it is drawn. Ezekiel has an allegory of 
that sort uhich Quintilian supposes this to. be, (namely, 
a proper allegory with only one real sense) and ho 
manages it with that brevity and expedition which ^proper 

See the beuinniim of this volume. 




allegory demands, when used in the place of a metaphor. 
vS peaking of Tyre under the image of a Ship, he says, 
77?j/ Rowers have brought thee into great waters : the 
east wind hath broken tliee in the midst of the Seas-** 
But suppose the Ode to be both historical and allego 
rical, and that, under his immediate concern for his 
Friends, he conveyed his more distant apprehensions 
for the Republic ; and then there appears so much ease, 
and art, and dignity, in every period, as make us justly 
^esteem it the most finished composition of Antiquity. 

What is it then which makes the double seme so ridi 
culous and absurd in, Hi motus animorum, 8$c. and so 
noble and rational in, O Navis referent, 8$c. but this, 
That, in the latter case, the subject of the two senses 
had a close connexion in the INTERESTS OF THE 
WRITER; in the former, none at all ? Now that which 
makes two senses reasonable, does, at the same time, 
always make them intelligible and obvious. But if this 
be true, then a double sense in Prophecies must be both 
reasonable and intelligible: For I think no Believer will 
deny that there was the closest connexion between the 
Jewish and Christian systems, in the Dispensations of 
the Holy Spirit. This will shew us, with what know 
ledge of his subject the late Lord Bolingbroke was en 
dowed, when he endeavoured to discredit Types and 
Figures by this wise observation, " That Scripture Types 
" and Figures have NO MORE RELATION TO the things 
" said to be typified, than to any thing that passes now 
" in France f." 

3. His next argument runs thus" If GOD is dis- 
" posed to reveal to mankind any truths he must con- 
" vey them in such a manner that they may be under- 
". stood if he speaks to men, he must condescend to. 
" their infirmities and capacities Now if he were to 
c contrive a Proposition in such a manner that the 
" same Proposition should relate to several events; the 

* Chap.xxvii. ver. 26, f Works, vol. iii. p. 306. 

" consequence 


" consequence would be, that as often as events happened 
" which agreed to any Proposition, so often would the 
" Revelation be accomplished. But this would only 
" serve to increase the confusion of men s minds, aiui 
" never to clear up any Prophecy : No man could say 
" what was intended by the Spirit of GOD: And if 
* c MANY events were intended, it would be the same 
" thing as if NO event was intended at all/* p. 226, 

I all along suspected he was talking against what he did 
not understand. He proposed to prove the absurdity of a 
double -or secondary sense (p. 221) of Prophecies; and 
now he tells us of MANY senses; and endeavours to shew 
how this would make Prophecy useless. But sure he 
should have known, what the very phrase itself intimates, 
that no prophetic proposition is pretended to have more 
than TWO senses : And farther, that the subject of each i 
supposed to relate to two connected arid successive Dis 
pensations : which is so far from creating any confu& wtt 
in men s minds, or mailing a Prophecy useless, that it 
cannot but strengthen and confirm our belief of, and give 
double evidence to, the divinity of the Prediction. Ou 
the contrary, he appears to think that what orthodox 
Divines mean by a second sense, is the same with what 
the Scotch Prophets mean by a second sight ; the seeing 
one thing alter another as long as the imagination will 
liold out. 

4. His last argument is " Nor is it any ground for 
^ such a supposition, that the Prophets being FULL or 
; " THE IDEAS of the Messiah, and his glorious kingdom, 
" MADE USE OF IMAGES taken from thence, to express 
* the- points upon which they had occasion to speak. 
" From whencesoeverthey took their ideas, yet when they 
i: spoke of present facts, it was present facts only that 
i; were to be understood. Common language, and the 
" figures of it, and the manner of expression; themeta- 
" ffhors, the kyperbelcf, and all the usual forms of speech, 
" are to be considered : And if the occasions of the 

" expression 


" expression are taken from a future state, yet still the 
" Proposition is to be interpreted of that one thing to 
". which it is particularly applied." p. 227. 

Orthodox Divines have supported the reasonableness 
and probability of double semes by this material Obser 
vation, that the inspired Writers were full of the ideas 
of the Christian Dispensation. That is, there being a 
close relation between the Christian and the Jewish, of 
which the Christian was the completion, whenever the 
Prophets spoke of any of the remarkable fortunes of the, 
one, they interwove with it those of the other. A truth., 
which no man could be so hardy to deny, who believes, 
1. That there is that relation between the two Religions : . 
and, 2. That these inspired men were let into the nature 
and future fortunes of both. See now in what manner 
our Author represents this observation. It is no ground, 
says he, for a double sense, that the Prophets were full 
of the ideas of a Messiah and his glorious kingdom, and 
made use of images taken from thence ; [that is, that they 
ennobled their style by their habitual contemplation of 
magnificent ideas.] For (continues he) whencesocccr 
they took their ideas, when they spoke of present facts, 
present facts alone were to be understood. Common- 
language and the figures of it, &c. \Vithout doubt, from 
such KJulness oj ideas, as only raised and ennobled their 
style, it could be no more concluded that they meant 
future facts, when they speak of present, than that Virgil, 
because he was lull of the magnificent ideas of the 
Roman grandeur, where he says, Priami Lnperlum 
Divum Domus, Ilium, 8$ Ingens gloria Teucrorum^ 
meant Rome as well as Troy, But what is all this to 
the purpose? Orthodox Divines talk of a fulness of ideas 
arising from the Holy Spirits revealing the mutual de 
pendency and future fortunes of the two Dispensations; 
and revealing them for the information, solace, and support 
of the Christian Church: And Dr. Sykes talks of. a 
fulness of ideas got nobody knows how, and used nobody 



knows why, to raise (I think he says) their style and 
ennoble their images. Let him give some good account 
of this representation, and then we may be able to de 
termine, if it be worth the trouble, whether he here put 
the change upon himself or his readers. To all this 
Dr. Sykes replies, " It was no answer, to shew that 
" there are allegories and allegorical interpretation^ 
** for these were never by me denied/ Exam. p. 363. 
Why does he tell us of his never denying allegories, when 
he is called upon for denying secondary semes f Does he 
take these things to be different ? If he does, his answer 
is nothing to the purpose, for he is only charged, in 
express words, with denying secondary semes, Does he 
take them to be the same f He must then allow secondary 
senses ; and so give up the question ; that is, retract the 
passages here quoted from him. He is reduced to this 
dilemma, either to acknowledge that he first writ, or that 
he now answers, to no purpose *. 

From hence, to the end of the chapter, he goes on 
to examine particular texts urged against his opinion ; 
with which I have at present nothing to do : first* 
because the proper subject of this section is the general 
nature only of types and double senses : and secondly, 
because what room I have to spare, on this head, is for 
a much welcomer Guest, whom I am now returning 
to, the original author of these profound reasonings, 
Mr. COLLINS himself. 


We have shewn that types and secondary senses are 
rational, logical, and scholastic modes of information: 
that they were expedient and highly useful under the 
Jewish Economy : and that they are indeed to be found 
in the Institutes of the Law and the Prophets. But now 
it will be objected, cf that, as far as relates to the Jewish 
Economy, a double seme may be allowed ; because the. 
future affairs of that Dispensation may be well supposed 
* See note [BBJ at the end of this Book. 



to occupy the thoughts of the Prophet; but it is un 
reasonable to make one of the senses relate to a different 
and remote Dispensation, never surely in his thoughts. 
For the hooks of the. Old Testament (Mr. Collins tells us) 
seem the wast plain of all ancient writings, and wherein 
there appears not the hast trace of a Typical or Allegori- 
.cal intention in the Authors, or in any other Jews of 
their time *." 

I reply, that was it even as our adversaries suggest, 
that ail the Prophecies, which, we say, relate to JESUS, 
relate to him only in a secondary sense ; and that there 
were no other intimations of the New Dispensation but 
what such Prophecies convey ; it would not follow that 
such sense was false or groundless. And this I have 
clearly shewn in the account of their nature, original, 
and use. Thus much I confess, that without miracles, 
in confirmation of such sense, somef of them would with 
difficulty be proved to have it ; because we have shewn, 
that a com m odious and designed obscurity attends both 
their nature and their use. But then, This let me add, 
and these Pretenders to superior reason would do well 
to consider it, that the authority of divine Wisdom as 
rationally forces tlie assent to a determined meaning of 
an obscure and doubtful Proposition, as any other kind 
of logical evidence whatsoever. 

But this which is here put, is by no means the case. 
For we say, i. That some of the Prophecies relate to 
JESUS in & primary sense. 2. That besides these, there 
are in tlie prophetic Writings the most clear and certain 
intimations of the Gospel Economy, which are alone 
.sufficient to ascertain the reality of the secondary. 

L That SOME Prophecies relate to the MESSIAH in 
a primary sense, hath been invincibly proved by many 
learned men before me : I shall mention therefore but 
px E ; and that, only because Mr. Collins hath made 
some- remarks upon it, which will afford occasion for a 

-* (ground*, p,82, f See note [CC] at the end of this Book. 



farther illustration of the subject JESUS declares, of 
John the Baptist This is the ELI AS that was for to 
come. " Wherein (says the Author of the Grounds, &c.) 
" he is supposed to refer to these words of Malachi, 
" Behold I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the 
" coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord; 
" which, according to their LITERAL sense, are a Pro- 
" phesy that Elijah or Ellas was to come in person, and 
" therefore not LITERALLY but MYSTICALLY fulfilled 
" in John the Baptist" pp. 47, 48. And again, in his 
Scheme of literal Prophecy considered, speaking of this 
passage of Malachi, he says, " But to cut off all pretence 
" for a literal Prophecy, I observe, first, That the literal 
" interpretation of this place is, that Ellas, the real 
" Ellas, was to come. And is it not a MOST PLEASANT 
" literal interpretation to make Ellas not signify Ellas, 
" but somebody who resembled him in qualities? 
" Secondly I observe, that the Septuagint Translators 
" render it, Ellas the Tishblte, and that the Jews, 
* since CHRIST S time, have generally understood, from 
" the passage before us, that Elias is to come in person. 
" But John Baptist himself, who must be supposed to 
" know who he was himself, when the question was 
" asked him, whether he icas Elias, denied himself to he 
" Ellas ; and when asked who he was, said, he was the 
" voice of one crying in the Wilderness, Sfc. which is $ 
" passage taken from Isaiah" p. 127. 

i . The first thing observable in these curious remarks 
is, that this great Advocate of Infidelity did not so much 
as understand the terms of the question. The words, 
says he, according to their literal sense, are a Prophesy 
that Elijah teas to come in person, and therefore- not 
literally but mystically fit IjiUed in John the Baptist. lie 
did not so much as know the meaning of a primary and 
secondary sense, about which he makes all this stir. 
A secondary sense indeed implies o, figurative interpre 
tation ; a primary implies a literal: But yet. this primary 



SE\ T SE does not exclitfte^ftgtfiwti&e TEIIMS. The primary 
or literal sense of the Prophecy in question is, that, 
?>eibre the great and terrible day of the Lord, a messen 
ger should be sent, resembling in character the Prophet 
Elijah ; this messenger, by & figure, is called the Prophet 
Elijah. A figure too of the mast easy and natural im 
port ; and of especial use amongst the Hebrews, -who 
were accustomed to denote any character or action bv 
that of the kind vvhich was hecbrfie most known or 
celebrated. Thus the Prophet Isaiah : ** And the Lord 
* shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea ? 
" and with his mighty win-d shall he shake his hand over 
" the river, and shall smite it in the scxeu slwams *V 
Here, a second passage through the Red Sea is promised 
in literal terms : But who thereibre will say that this is 
the literal waubig ? The literal meaning, though the 
prophecy be \i\Jigurative terms, is simply redemption 
from bondage. For EGYPT, in the Hebrew phrase, 
signified a place of bondage. So again Jeremiah says ; 
" A voice was heard in llamah, lamentation and bitter 
" weeping: RACHEL weeping ibr lier children refused 
<v to be comforted because they were not f. r The 
primary sense of these words, according to Grotius. is a 
prediction of the weeping of the Jewish matrons for their 
children can led captive to Babylon by Nabuzaradan, 
Will he say therefore that this Prophecy was not literally 
fulfilled, because Rachel was dead many ages before, 
and did not, that we read ot\ return to life on this occa 
sion ? Does not he see that, by the most common and 
easy figure, the Matrons of the tribe of Benjamin were 
called by the name of this their great Parent? As the 
Israelites, in Scripture, are called Jacob, and the posterity 
of the son of Jesse by the name of David: So a^aih, 
Isaiah says, " Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of 
" SODOM ; give ear unto the Law oi our GOD, ye people 
" of GojuoititAirj;." Will he say, the people of Sodom 

Jb, xi. ver. 15, f Ch. xjpi ver. 15, * Ch. i. ver. 10. 



and Gomorrah are here addressed to in \he primary sense, 
and the people of the Jews only in the secondary ? But 
the preceding words, which shew the people of Sodom 
and Gomorrah could not now be addressed to, because 
there were none left, shew likewise that it is the Jewish 
Nation which is called by these names. Except the 
Lord of Hosts had left us a very small remnant, we 
should have been as Sodom, and we should have been 
like unto Gomorrah *. Would not he be thought an 
admirable interpreter of Virgil, who should criticise the 
Roman Poet in the same manner? Virgil seems the 
most plain of all ancient writings : And lie says, 

" Jain redit & Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna." 

Which, according to its literal meaning, is, that the 
Virgin returns, and old Saturn reigns again, in person ; 
and therefore not LITERALLY, but MYSTICALLY fid- 
Jilled in the justice and felicity of Augustus s reign. And 
it is a MOST PLEASANT literal interpretation, to make 
the Virgin and Saturn not signify the Virgin and Saturn, 
but somebody who resembled them in qualities. Such 
reasoning on a Classic, would be called nonsense in every 
language. But Freethinking sanctifies all sorts of im 
pertinence. Let me observe further, that this was a 
kind of compound blunder : LITERAL, in common speech, 
being opposed both to figurative, and to spiritual ; and 
MYSTICAL signifying both Jiguratire and spiritual; he 
fairly confounded the distinct and different meanings 
both of LITERAL and of MYSTICAL. 

He goes on / observe, that the Septuagint Trans 
lators render it Elias the Tishbite and that the Jews 
since CHRIST S time have generally understood from this 
passage,, that Elias is to come in person. And John 
Baptist himself, who must be supposed to know who he 
was himself, when the question was asked, him, denied 
himself to be Elias. Why does lie say, Since CHRIST S 
thne, and not before, when it appears to be before as well 

* Chap, i. ver. 9, Q 


as since, from his own account of the translation of the 
Septuagint? For a good reason. We should then have 
seen why John the Baptist, when asked, denied himself 
to be Ellas ; which j it was not Mr. Collins s design we 
should see; if indeed we do not ascribe too much to his 
knowledge in this matter. The case stood thus : At the 
time of the SeptuRgint translation, and from thence to 
the time of CHRIST, the doctrine of a Transmigration, 
and of a Resurrection of the body, to repossess the 
Land of Judea, were national opinions ; which occa 
sioned the Jews by degrees to understand all these 
sorts of figurative expressions literally. Hence, amongst 
their many visions, this was one, that Elias should come 
again in person. Which shews what it was the Jews- 
asked John the Baptist ; and what it was he answered, 
when he denied himself to be Elias : Not that he was not 
the Messenger prophesied of by Malachi (for his pre 
tending to be that Messenger evidently occasioned the 
question) but that he was not, nor did the prophecy 
imply that the Messenger should be, Elias in person. 

But to set his reasoning in the fullest light, Let us 
consider a similar prophecy of Amos : Behold the days 
come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a FAMINE 
in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water 
but of hearing the words of the Lord*. I would ask, 
is this a Prophecy of a famine of the word in a literal, 
or in a mystical sense? Without doubt the Deist will 
own, (if ever he expects we should appeal again to Iris 
ingenuity) in a literal. But now strike out the expla 
nation [not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water] 
and what is it then ? Is it not still a famine of the word 
in a literal sense ? Mystical, if you will, in the meaning 
of metaphorically obscure, but not in the meaning; of 
spiritual. But mystical in this latter signification onlv, 
is opposed to literal, in the question about secondary 
senses. It appears then, that a want of preaching th$ 
* Chap. viii. ver. 11. 



tcord is still the literal mean ing of the Prophecy, 
whether the explanation be in or out, though the Jfgu- 
rathe, term [famine] be used to express that meaning. 
And the reason vrhy the Prophet explains the term,, 
was not, because it was .a harsh or unnatural Jigtixe, to 
denote want of preaching, any more than the term 
Elijah to denote a similar character, which Malachi does 
not explain ; but because the Prophecy of Amos might 
have been for ever mistaken, and tliejigicrafhc. term un 
derstood literally ; the People being at that time, oiler* 
punished for their sins by & famine of bread 
. But this abusive cavil at figurative terms will re mm A 
us of his observations en the following Prophecy of 
Isaiah " Even them will I bring to my holy mountain^ 
" and make them joyful in my house of prayer : their 
" burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted 
" upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an 
" house of Prayer FOR ALL PEOPLE*." This, he says, 
must needs relate to Jewish, not to Ghristiarn times.. 
Why? Because sacrifices are mentioned. But how could 
this truth be told the Jewish People, that all nations 
should be gathered to the. true GOD, otherwise than by 
MS ing terms taken from Rites familiar to them ; unless 
the nature of the Christian Dispensation had been pre 
viously explained r A matter evidently irjfit for their in 
formation, when they were yet to live so long under the 
Jewish. For though the Prophets speak of the little, 
value of, and small regard due to, the ceremonial Law ^ 
they always mean (and always make their meaning un 
derstood) when the ceremonial Law is supcrstitionslyr 
observed, and observed to a neglect of the moral \ which 
last they describe in the purity and perfection of the* 
Gospel. So admirable was this conduct! that while ifc 
hid the future Dispensation, it prepared men for it. 

Thus then stands the argument of this mighty Reasoncr.. 
There arc no Prophecies, he says, which: relate to JLSU& 

* Chap..!vi. ver. 7, 



but in a secondary sense. Now a secondary sense h 
unscholastic and enthusiasticaL To this we answer, that 
the Prophecy of Malachi about Elijah, and of Isaiah 
about bringing ail people to his holy mountain, relate 
to JESUS in a primary sense. He replies, No, but in 
a mystical, only. Here he begins to quibble, the sure 
sign of an expiring argument: Mystical signifies as well 
secondary asjigwativt. In the sense of secondary, the 
interpretation of these Prophecies to JESUS is nettoystieafy 
in the sense of Jiguratrct it is. But is the use of a 
figurative term enthusiastical or unschclastic, when the 
end is only to convey information concerning a less 
known thing in the terms of one more known ? Now 
whether we are to charge this to ill faith or a worse 
understanding, his Followers shall determine for me. 

2. But we will suppose all that an ingenuous Adver 
sary can ask " That most of the Prophecies in question 
relate to JESUS in a secondary sense only ; the rest in a 
primary, but expressed m figurative terms ; which, till 
their completion, threw a shade over their meaning, and 
kept them in a certain degree of obscurity." Now, to 
shew how all this came about, will add still farther light to 
this very perplexed question. 

We have seen, from the nature and long duration of the 
Jewish economy, that the Prophecies which relate to JES u s, 
must needs be darkly and enigmatically delivered: We 
have seen how the allegoric Mode of speech, then much 
in use, furnished the means, by what we call a double 
sense in Prophecies, of doing this with all the requisite 
obscurity. But as some of these Prophecies by their 
proper light alone, without the confirmation of miracles, 
could hardly have their subiimer sense so well ascer 
tained; to render all opposers of the Gospel without ex 
cuse, it pleased the Holy Spirit, under the last race of 
the Prophets, to give credentials to the mission of JESUS 
by predictions of him in a primary and literal sense. 
Yet the Jewish Economy being to continue long, there 

G a till 


still remained the same necessity of a covert and myste 
rious conveyance. That figurative expression therefore, 
which was before employed in the proposition, was* 
IKJW used in the terms* Hence, the Prophecies of a 
swiglts&ui* come to be in highly figurative wo*ds :.. as> 
before, the earlier prophecies of a double sense (which- 
had a primary .meaning in the affairs of the Jewish State r 
and, for the present information of ttiat People) were 
delivered in a much simpler phrase. 

The Jewish Doctors, whose obstinate adherence, not? 
to the letter of the Law, as this Writer ignorantly or 
fraudulently suggests, but to the mystical interpretation s 
of the CaJmla, prevents their seeing -the -true cause of 
Uiis difference in the LANGUAGE, between the earlier and 
later Prophets; the Jewish Doctors, I say, are extremely- 
perplexed to give a tolerable account of this matter. 
What they best agree in is, that the Jig it rat ire enigmatic 
style of the later Prophets (which however they make- 
infinitely more obscure by cabalistic meanings, . than it 
really is, in order to evade the relation which the Pre 
dictions have to. JESUS) is owing to the declining state of 
Srophecy. Every Prophtt^ says- the famous Rabbi, 
Joseph Albo, that is of a strong, .wguciinM, ami piercing* 
itnderstaudingy.wili apprehend the thing nakedly without 
any similitude;, who we it comes to paw that alt hi* .say-* 
rugs are distinct and clear, and j^ee from all obscurity, 
having a literal truth in them : But u Prophet of an 
:jerior wink or degree, his words axe obscure, cmcrapped. 
in riddle* ami parable* \~ and therefore, lurcc not a literal 
but allegorical truth contained in them*. And indeed* 
insr fictitious RabbLseeaas to have had as little knowledge! 
of this matter as the* other; for in answer to what Mr. 
"WhSston, who, extravagant as he was in rejecting all 
double saw*, yet knew the difference between a secondary* 
and enigmatic prophecy, which, we- shall see, Mr. Collins^ 
did not, in answer, I say, to Mr. Whiston, who observed* 
* Smith s Select Discourses, p. .180. 


4hat the Prophetic* [meaning the primary] which *-relate 
to Christianity arc cowred, --mystical and enigmatical, re- 
t piies, This is exactly equal mysticism \cith, and just ait 
remote from the real literal seme, as-ihe -mysticism GJ the 
\Allegorists [i.c the -Contenders fer a double sense] and 
is altogether as OV>SCVIIY. to the understanding*. Ilk 
argument against secondary senses -is, that they are umcho- 
lastic and Kthtt$ia$tie&L Mr. Whiston, to humour him, 
^presents him with direct and primary Prophecies, buttelk; 
him at the same time, they ate expressed in covered, 
mystical, and enigmatic terms. This will not satisfy \hiin; 
it is no better than the mysticism of the Allegoristn. 
Jiow- so : We may think perhaps, that he would pretend 
to prove, because his argument requires he should prove, 
that enigmatical egressions are as iinscholastic and en- 
thusiastical as secondary senses. "No such matter. All 
\he says is, that they are as OBSGUKE to. the understanding. 
But obscurity is not his quarrel with secondary seines. 
lie objects to them as i<nscliolastic-and,.enhii>sia$ticaL But 
.liere lay the difficulty; no man, w! A o pretended to any 
language, could affirm this, oi figurative enigmatical ex 
pressions ; he was forced therefore to .have recourse to his 
usual refuse. OBSCURITY. 

o 7 

It is true, he says, -these wi/st icdl ciii gmaiic Prophet - 
(as Air. Whiston -calls them) arc equally remote from 
the real literal sense, as the mysticis/n of the Allegorists. 
.But this is only a repetition of the blunder exposed above, 
where he could not distinguish between the literal sense 
.of a Term, and the literal sense of a Proposition. And 
how gross that ignorance is we may see by the follouing 
"instance. Isaiah says, The Wolf also shall diccil icith tie 
Lamb, and the Leopard shall, lie down icith tlie Kid , and 
the Calf, and the young Lion, and the Falling together, 
and a little Child shall lead thaw]:. Now I will take it 
. for granted that his Followers understand this, as Grotius 
aloes, of the profound peace which was to follow after 
*. The Grounds, &c. p. 242. -j Chap. xi. vcr 6. 

G 3 ths 


the times of Seuacberib, under Hczckiah : but though 
the terms be mystical, yet sure they call this the literal 
sense of liic prophecy: .For Grotius makes the ntjsticfil 
sense to refer to the Gospel. Mr. Whiston, I suppose, 
denies that this has any thing to do w ith the times of 
Hezekiah, but that it refers to those of CHRIST only. Is 
not his interpretation therefore literal as well as that of 
Grotius? unless it i in mediately becomes oddly typical, 
uns.ciiotastic, and entJtusia&tica^ as soon as ever JESUS 
comes into the question. 

II. Eut now, besides the literal primary prophecies 
concerning the PERSON of JESUS, we say, in the second 
place, that there are other, which give a primary and 
direct intimation of the CHAXGE OF THE DISPENSA 
TION". Isaiah foretels great mercies to the Jewish 
People, in a future Age; which, though represented by 
such metaphors as bore analogy to the blessings peculiar 
to the Jewish economy, yet, to shew that they were in 
deed different from what faz figurative terms alluded to, 
the Prophet at the same time adds, My thoughts are not 
as your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, smth 
the Lord*. This surely implies a different DISPENSA 
TION. That the change was from carnal to spiritual, 
is elegantly intimated in the subjoining words, For as 
the HEAVENS are higher than the EARTH, so are my 
tvays higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your 
thoughts \. But tliis higher and more excellent Dispen 
sation is more plainly revealed in the following tigure : 
Instead of the thorn shall come up the jir-irce, and 
instead of the brier shall mm up the myrtle-tree ^^ 
i. e. the -new Religion shall as far excel the old, as the 
fir-tree docs the thorn, or the myrtle the brier. In a 
following Prophecy he shews the EXTENT of this new 
Religion, as here he had shewn its NATURE; that it was 
to spread beyond Judea, and to take in the whole race 
of mankind, The GENTILES shall come to thy light., and 
* ver. 8. t Ver. 9. ; Ver. 13. 



:kbi<rs to the brightness of thy rising*, &c. Which idea 
the Prophet Zephaniah expresses in so strong a manner, 
-as to no room for evasion : The Lord will be 
terrible -unto them, for he rev // .FAMISH all the GODS- 
aOF THE EARTH; and men shall worship him .ever?/ one 
i-Mieii IMS PLACE, .even all the isles of the G EX TILES f.- 
The expression is noble, and alludes to the popular 
Superstitions of Paganism, which conceived that their 
Gods were nourished by -the steam of sacrifices. But, 
when were the Pagan Gods thus famished, but in the 
first ages of Christianity? Every one from his place* 
that is, they were not to go up to JERUSALEM to 
worship. Even all the isles of the Gentiles: but when 
<lid these worship the God of Israel every one from his 
place, before the ; p reaching of the Apostles? Then indeed 
their speedy and general conversion distinguished them 
>frorn the rest of the nations. This he expresses yet more 
plainly in another place. " In that day shall there be an 
" altar to the Lord in the midst of the Land of 
u Egypt $ ;" i. e. the Temple-service shall be abolished; 
,and .the God of Israel worshipped with the most solemn 
rites, even in the most abhorred and unsanctified places, 
such as the Jews esteemed Egypt. Which Malachi thus 
diversifies in -the expression, And ui every place incense, 
diatt he offered wito my name, and a PURE OFFERING^; 
A. e. it shall not be the Jess acceptable for not being at 
the Temple. 

But Isaiah, as he proceeds, is still more explicit, and 
declares, in direct terms, that the Dispensation should be 
changed, Behold 1 create XEW HEAVEXS^/AY/ a NEW 
EARTH; and tke former thai! not be remembered nor come 
into ?nhul\\. . This, m the prophetic style, means a NEW 
IIELIGIOX and a XEW LAW; the metaphors, as \ve have 
shewn elsewhere, being taken from hieroglyphicai ex 
pression. He speaks in another place, of the consequence 
of this ctoftjige; namely, the transferring the benefits of 

* Ch. Ix. ver. 3. f Ch, Ji. ver. 11.. J Cli. xix. ver. 19. 

[ ,See poie D Dj at the end of this Book. j| Isai. Ixv. 17. 

G 4 lleiigiou 


Religion from the Jewish to the Christian Dispensation. 
Is it not yet a very little while, " and Lebanon [the 
" isles of the Gentiles] .shall be turned into a fruitful 
" field, and the fruitful field [the land of Judea] shall 
" be esteemed as a forest * ? " To make it yet more clear, 
I observe farther, that the Prophet goes on to declare 
the change of the SANCTION ; and this was a necessary 
consequence of the change of the Dispensation. There 
shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old 
man that hath -not Jilted Ids days : For the cliild diall die. 
an hundred years old, but the sinner being an hundred 
years old shall be accursed | ; /. c. the SANCTION OF 


longer administered in an extraordinary manner; for we 
must remember, that long life for obedience, and sudden 
and untimely death for transgressions, bore an eminent 
part in the Sanction of the Jewish Law. Now these arc 
expressly said to be abrogated in the Dispensation pro 
mised, it being declared that the Virtuous, though dying 
immaturely, should be as if they had lived an hundred 
years ; and sinners, though living to an hundred years, as 
if they had died immaturely. 

The very same prophecy in Jeremiah, delivered in less 
figurative terms, supports this interpretation beyond all 
possibility of cavil : " Behold the days come, saith the 
" Lord, that I will make a NEW COVENANT with the 
" house of Israel, and with the house of Jitdah; not 
" according to the Covenant that I made with their fa- 
" thers, in the day that I took them by the hand, to bring 
" them out of the land of tigypt. But this shall be the 
" Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, 
4i After those days, saith the Lord, / will put my Law 
"in their INWARD PA UTS, and write it in their 


What Isaiah figuratively names a new Heaven and 
a new Hearth, Jeremiah simply and literally calls a m\v 
* Ch. xxix. ver. 1 7. t Cli. Ixv, ver. -20 J Ch. xxxi. ver. 3 1 . 



Covenant. And what kind of Covenant ? Not such an 
one as was made with their Fathers. This was declara 
tive enough of its nature ; yet, to prevent mistakes, he 
*ives as well a ppsitjve as a negative description of it: 
This shall be the Covenant, I icill put my Law in their 
inward parts, fyc. i. e. this Law shall be spiritual, as the 
other given to their Fathers was carnal: For the Cere 
monial Law did not scrutinize tiie heart, but rested in ex 
ternal obedience and observances. 

Lastly, to crown the whole, we may observe, that 
Jeremiah too, like Isaiah, fixes the true, nature of the 
Dispensation by declaring the CHANGE of the SANCTION: 
* In those days they shall say no more, the fathers have 
tc eaten a sour grape, and the child rens" teeth are set on 
" edge. But every one shall die lor his own iniquity; 
" every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be 
tc set on edge*." For it was part of the Sanction of the 
Jewish Law, that children should bear the iniquity of 
their fathers, c. a mode of punishing vvhich hath been 
already explained and justified. Yet all these Prophecies 
of the GOSPEL being delivered in terms appropriate to 
the LAW, the Jews of that time uould naturally, as they 
in fact did, undeis and them- as speaking of the extension 
and completion of the OLD Dispensation, rather than the 
perfection of it by the introduction of a NEW. And thus 
.jtlieir reverence tor the present System, under which they 
were yet to continue, was preserved. I he necessity of 
this proceeding, for the present time; the effects it would 
afterwards produce through the perversity ot the super-* 
stitious followers of the Law; and the divine ^oodnesa 
as well as wisdom manifested in this proceeding are all 

finely touched in the following passage of Isaiah f 

" Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he 

make to understand doctrine? Them that are weaned 

" from the milk, and .drawn from the breasts ]:. For 

* Ver. <20. f Chap, xxviii. 9, & se q. 

t i. e. Those who were most free from the prejudices of the 
Etfrjiitu of t^e LUYV. 

" precept 


* s precept must be [or hath beai] upon precept, precept 
" upon precept, line upon line, line upon line *, here a 
* little and there a little. For with stammering lips and 
" another tongue will he speak to this People j\ To 
" whom he said, This is the rest, and this is the refresh- 

* l H1 t> y o *ky would not hear. But the word of the 
* Lord was unto them, precept upon precept, precept 
* upon precept, line upon line, line upon line, here a 
* little and the- re a little ; that they might go and fall 
* backward, and he broken and snared and taken ." 

Notwithstanding all this, if you will believe our Ad 
versary, The books of the Old Testament seem the 
most PLAIN" of ail ancient writings, and wherein there 
ALLEGORICAL INTENTION* hi the Authors, or in any 
ether Jews of their trincs^.. Ife that answers a Free 
thinker will find employment enough. Not the leclst 
trace of a typical or allegorical intention! lie might, 
a-s well have said there is not the least trace of poetry in 
Virgil, or of eloquence in Cicero. But there is none, he 
says, cither in the Authors, or in any other Jews of tin-! r 
times. Of both which Assertions, this single Text of 
Ezckiel will be an abundant confutation Ah, Lord, 


The Prophet con j plains that his ineffectual Mission 
proceeded from his speaking, and from the People s 
conceiving him to sp^ak, of things mysteriously, and in 
a mode of delivery not understood by them. The Author 

recluplicuiion of the jtln-use was to add force and energy to 
the sense. 

t i.e. Gospel truths delivered in the language of the Law. 
i.e. The glad tidings of the Gospel. 

i.e. This gradual yet re j o^ted instruction, wliich was given with 
so much iiK-rey and iiidnlgenre, to lead them by slow and gentle 
6tps from t}ie Law to the. Gospel, being abused so as to defeat tlie 
ft f,d, God in punishment made it the occasion of blinding their eyes 
nd hardfuing their hearts. 

|j Grounds, &c. p. 8-2. J Chap, xx. -ver. 49* 



of the book of Ecclesiasticus, who is reasonably supposed 
to have been contemporary with Antiochus Epiphanes, 
represents holy Scripture as fully fraught with typical 
and allegoric wisdom : " lie that jilveth his mind to the 
46 Law of the Most High, and is occupied in the medita- 
" tion thereof, will seek out the wisdom of the Ancients, 
" the sayings of the renowned men ; and where SUBTILE 
" PARABLES are, he will be there also. lie will seek 
<k out the SECRETS OF cu AVE SENTENCES, and be 
" conversant in DARK PARABLES*." Hence it appears 
that -the Jewish Prophecies were not so plain as our 
Adversary represents them; and that their obscurity 
arose from their having TyfifCffl or Allegorical intentions ; 
which figures too related not to the present, but to a 
future Dispensation, as is farther seen from what Ezekiel 
says . in another place Son of man, behold they of titc 
house of Israel say, THE VISION THAT HE SKETII is 

THE TIM ES THAT ARE FAR OFF |~. So that tilCSG People tO 

whom the Prophecies were so plain, and who understood 
them to respect their own times dvAy,&ithwt any Typical 
or sll/egvric lii&dningi complaia of obscurities in them, 
and consider them as referring to very rernote times . 
But I am ashamed of being longer serious with so idle 
a Caviller. The English Bible lies open to every FREE- 
TILT XKER of Great Britain ; -Where they may read it 
that will, and understand it that can. 

As for such Writers as the Author of the Grounds 
and Reasons, To say the truth, one would never wish to 
see them otherwise employed : But when so great and so 
good a man as GROTIUS hath unwarily contributed to 
support the dotages of Infidelity, this is such a mbad-r 
venture as one cannot but lament. 

ay*j-ca^a*It Ch. xxxix. vc; f 1, ; 2, 3. 

mp. xii. ver.^j, 

- This 


This excellent Person (for it as not to br d^uised) 
3iath made it his constant endeavour throughout his whole 
KJornment x>n the Prophets, to find a double sense even 
iin those <&Vee Prophecies which relate to JESUS ; and to 
urn the tinman/ sense upon the affairs of the Jewish 
Dispensation; only permitting them to relate to JLSU& 
.in a -secondary : .and by that affected strain of interpre 
tation, hath done alaiost as much harm to Revelation as 
-his other writings have done it service: not ivom any 
strength there is in his Criticisms (for this, and his 
Comment on the Apocalypse, are the opprobrium of his 
-great learning), but /jnly from the name ; tliey .carry witk 

The Principle which Grotlus went upon, in com- 
ancnting the Bible, was, that it should be interpreted OH 
ihe same rules of Criticism that men use in the study 
<of all other ancient Writings. Nothing could be more 
^reasonable than his Principle : but unluckily he deceived 
Jiimseif in the application of it. These .rules teach us 
,<that the GEXIUS, PURPOSE, and .AUTIIUIU/IV of the 
Writer should be carefully studied. Under the head 
of his authority t it considered, whether he be a 
.incre huxuin or an inspired Writer, Thus far Grotius 
Tvent right : he examined that authority ; and pronounced 
the Writers to bejnffiwd, and .the Prophecies divine: 
Jkit when he came to apply these premisses, he utterly 
dorgot his conclusion ; and interpreted the Prophecies 
by rules very diiTv ivut from vv hat the confession of their 
divine original required : for seeing them pronounced by 
Jewish, occupied Jn Jewish Af^iirs, he con- 
dudcni lUcir >olc Object was Jewish; and consequently 

i the proper <cii:%j of the Prophecies referred to these 
.only. liut t.his \vas faliiiig back irom one of the grounds 
lie weut upon, That the Wriicrs were inspired : for his 
futerpretation was only reasonable oji the supposition that 
i se Writers prophesied in the very manner which the 
Pagans understood their Prophets sometimes to have 
.6 .done, 


done, by a natural sagacity : For, on the allowance off 
a real inspiration, it was GOD, and not the Writer, who 
was the proper Author of the Prophecy; mid to under 
stand his- purpose -, which the rules of interpretation^ 
require us to seek, we must examine the nature, reason, 
and end- of that Religion which he gave to the Jews. 
For on these, common sense assures us, the meaning 1 
of the Prophesies must be intirely regulated. Now if y 
(n enquiry, it should be found, that this whieh Grotius- 
admitted for a divine Dispensation, was only preparatory 
of another more perfect, it would then appear not to l>e 
improbable that some of these -Prophecies might relate, 
in them literal,, primary, and immediate sense, to that? 
more perfect Dispensation. And whether they did so* 
or not was to be determined by the joint evidence of the* 
context, and of the nature of GOD S whole Dispensation 
to mankind, so far forth as it is discoverable to us. But 
Grotius, instead of making the matter thus reasonably 
problematical) and to- be determined by evidence, deter 
mined first, andTaid it down as a kind of Principle, that 
t?he Prophecies related directly and properly to Jewish 
affairs : and into this system he wiredrew all his. ex 
planations. This, as- w-c say, was falsely applying a true 
rule of interpretation. lie went on this reasonable- 
ground, that the Prophecies should he interpreted like 
all other ancient. Writings :, and, OH-. examining their 
authority^ he found them to be truly divine. Vv lien he 
had gone thus far, he then preposterously went back, 
again, and commented as it they were confessed to be- 
merely human : The consequence was, that- several of 
his criticisms, to speak of them eoly as the performance 
of a man of learning, are so forced, unnatural, and absurd, 
so opposed to the rational canon of interpretation, that 
I will venture to affirm they are, in all respects, the 
worst that ever came, from the hand of an. acute and: 
able. Critic,. 



( . III. 

. Having now proved that the Principles which 
J,Ir. Collins went upon are in themselves false and 
extravagant, one has little reason to regard how he 
employed them. But as this extraordinary Writer was 
as great a Freethinker in Logic as in Divinity, it may 
not he improper to shew the fashionable World what 
sort of man they have chosen for their Guide, to lead 
them from their Religion, when they would no longer 
bear with any to direct them in it. 

His argument against what he calls typical, allegorical, 
but properly, secondary senses, stands thus : " Christi 
anity pretends to derive itself from Judaism. JESUS 
appeals to the religious hooks of the Jews as prophesying 
of his Mission. None of these Prophecies can be 
undertood of him but in a typical allegoric sense. Now 
that sense is absurd, and contrary to all scholastic rules 
of interpretation. Christianity, therefore, not being 
i:eally predicted of in the Jewish Writings, is conse 
quently false." The contestabie Proposition, on which 
the whole argument rests, is, That a typical or allegoric 
sense is absurd, and contrary to ail scholastic rules of 

Would the Reader now believe that Mr. Collins has 
himself, i;i this very book, given a thorough confutation 
of his own capital Proposition ? Yet so it is ; and, con 
trary too to his usual way 0J< reasoning, h ( > has done it in 
a very clear and convincing manner ; by shewing that 
the typical and allegorical way of writing was uni 
versally practised by Antiquity. "Allegory (says he) 
-was much in use amongst the Pagans, being culti- 
" vated by many of the Philosophers themselves as well 
" as Theologers. By SOME, AS THE METHOD OF DELI- 
" VERING DOCTRINES ; but bv most, as the method of 
" explaining away what, according to the letter, appeared 
s" ub^urd in the ancient fables or histories of their Gods. 



M Religion itself was deemed a mysterious tiling amongst. 
* tlic Pagans, and not to be publicly and plainly 
" declared. Wherefore it vvas never simply represented 
" to the People, but was most obscurely deliverer, 
** and vaii d under Allegories, or Parables,, or liiero- 
" glyphics ; and especially amongst the Egyptians, 
" Chaldeans, and the Oriental Nations. They allege- 
" rized many things of nature, and particularly the- 
" heavenly bodies They allegorized all their ancient 
" fables and stories, and pretended to discover in them, 
" the secrets of Natural Philosophy, Medicine, Politics, 
" and iu a word all Arts and Sciences. Tlae works- 
" of Homer in particular have furnished infinite materials 
" for all soits of allegorical Commentators to work 
" upon. The ancient Greek Poets were reputed to 
" involve divine, and natural, and historical notions of 
" their Gods under mystical and parabolical expres- 
" sions The Pythagorean Philosophy was wholly de- 
K livered in mystical language, the signification whereof 
" was entirely unkown to the world abroad The &ici& 
" Piiiicsophers are particularly iamous for allegorkkig; 
" the whole heathen Theology Vv e have se^-eral 
" treatises of heathen Philosophers on the subject oif 
" allegorical interpretation *." 

If now this kind of allegorizing, which involved the:. 
Proposition in a double XCMW, was ia use amongst the- 
Pagan Oraclea, Divines, PlJIo^ophers and I 5 oets ? is not 
the understiiixling aneient wiiLings Qllegoyioattyt or in a 
double .ycvwe, agreeab-Se to all rational, scholastic rules 
of interpretation ? Surely, as much so as the. understand 
ing mere mcliiphwical expressions in .a tropical sig- 
niiicaticMi ; whose propriety no one ever yet called in 
question. For the- sense of Propositions is .imposed as 
arbitrarily as the sense of wonts. And if men, the 
communication of their thoughts, agree to give, on some 
occasions, a double sense to Propositions, as well as. on 
* Grounds, &c. pp. 8^. 84, 85, 86. 



others, a single, the interpreting the first in two meanings 
is as agreeable to all scholastic rules, as interpreting the 
other in one: And Proposition*, with a double and single 
sense, are as easily distinguishable from each other, by 
the help of the context, as Word* \vith a literal and 
figurative meaning. But this great Philosopher seems 
to have imagined, that the single .sense of a Proposition 
was imposed by Nature ; and that therefore, pi vino them 
a double meaning, was the same offence against Reason 
as the deviating from the unity of pure Theism into 
Polytheism : and, consequently, that the universal lapse 
into ALLEGORY and IDOLATRY rendered neither the one 
nor other of them the less absurd *. 

I say, he seems to think so. More one cannot say of 
such a Writer. Besides, he seems to think otherwise, 
where, in another place, as if aware that Use would 
rescue a double -sense from his irrational and untcholastic 
censure, he endeavours to prove, that the Jews, during 
the prophetic period, did not use this allegoric way of 
expression. Now if we be right in this last conjecture 
about his meaning, he abuses the terms he employs, 
under a miserable quibble ; and, by Scholastic and un- 
scholastic rules, only means interpreting in a single or a 
double sense. 

The Header perhaps will be curious to know how it 
happened, that this great Rcasoner should, ail at once, 
overthrow what he had been so long labouring to build. 
This fatal issue of his two books of the GROUNDS, &c* 
and SCHEME, &c. had these causes: 

i. lie had a pressing and immediate objection to re 
move. And, as he had no great stock of argument, and 
but small forecast, any tiling at a plunge, would be 
received, which came, to his relief. 

The objection was this " That the allegorical inter- 
* pretations of the Apostles were not designed for 
" absolute proofs of Christianity, but for arguments ad 

* Senote [EBJ at the end of this Book. 

" homines 


" homines only to the Jews, who were accustomed to 
iC that way of reasoning," p. 79. Thus, he himself tells 
us, some Divines are accustomed to talk. He gives 
them indeed a solid answer ; but he dreams not of the 
consequence. He says, this allegoric reasoning was 
common to all mankind. Was it so ? Then the grand 
Proposition on which his whole Work supports itself is 
entirely overthrown. For if all mankind used it, the 
method must needs be rational and scholastic. But this 
he was not aware of. What kept him in the dark, was 
his never being able to distinguish between the USE and 
the ABUSE of this mode of information. These two 
things he perpetually confounds, The Pagan Oracles 
delivered themselves in allegories ; this was the use : 
Their later Divines turned all their Religion into 
allegory ; this was the abuse. The elder Pythagoreans 
gave their Precepts in allegory, this was the use: 
The later Stoics allegorized every thing; this was the 
abuse. Homer had some allegories ; this was the use : 
His Commentators turned all to allegory ; and this again 
was the abuse. But though he has talked so much of 
these things, yet he knew no more of them than old JOHN 
BUNYAN ; whose honester ignorance, joined to a good 
meaning, disposed him to admire that which the malig 
nity of our Author s folly inclined him to decry : and 
each in the like ridiculous extreme. 

2. But the other cause of this subversion of his own 
system was the delight he took to blacken the splendour 
of Religion. He supposed, we may be sure, it would 
prove an effectual discredit to Revelation, to have it seen, 
that there was this conformity between the Pagan and 
Jewish method of delivering Religion and Morality. 
His attempt hath been already exposed as it deserves *. 
But in this instance it labours under much additional 
folly. For the different reasons which induced the 
Propagators of Paganism, and the Author of Judaism, 
* See Bock iv. i. at the end, 

VOL. VI, ,11 to 


to employ the same method of information, are obvious- 
to the meanest capacity, if advanced but so far in the 
knowledge of nature to know, that different ends are vei-y 
commonly prosecuted by the same means. The Pagans 
allegorized in order to hide the wetness ami absurdities 
of their national Religions ; the Author of Judaism 
allegorized in order to prepare li/s follovvers i /or/*e recep 
tion, of ft wore per fccf Dh-pcmaticMy founded pn-Judai$m y 
which was preparatory of it ; and, at the same time, to 
prevent their premature rejection of Judaism, under which 
they were still to he long exercised; 

Thus we sec how this formidable Ertemy of our Faith 
has himself overturned hh> whole Argument by an unwary 
answer to an occasional objection. Hut this is but one y 
of a Work full of contradictions. I have no occasion to 
be particular, after removing his main- Principles; yet, 
for the Reader s diversion, I shall give biui a taste of 
them. In his 8 1st page, he says And there has been 
for a long tiwe,< and Is (it this time a* little use #f allegory 
in those respects amongst them [the Jews] as there seem* 
to have been during the time the books of the Old Testtt- 
mcnt were written, which seem the most plabi of att 
ancient jyritings, and wherein there appears not the 
least trace of a typical or allegorical intention in the 
Authors, or in ami other Jews of their times. Yet it is- 
but at tlie 8">th page that we find him saying And in 
this [iv^. in delivering his Philosophy in mystical lan 
guage] PYTHAGORAS came up to SOLOMON S character 
of icise men., u ho dealt in dark sayings, and acted not 
much unlike the most divine TeacJicr that ei cr was. Our 
Saviour spake with many parable^ c. Now it seems, 
it was Solomon s character of wise men, that they dealt 
in dark sayings. 15 tit these wise men were the Authors 
:f the Jewish Scriptures. And yet he had but just 
before assured us, That the books of the Old Testa 
ment seem the most plain of all ancient // r/V/^v, and 
wherein there appears not the least trace of a typical 



or allegorical intention in the Authors, or in any Jews of 
their times. 

Again, in his pages 85, 86, lie says, " The Pythagorean 
" Philosophy was wholly delivered in mystical language; 
" the signification whereof was intircly unknown to the 
" world abroad, and but gradually explained to those of 
" the sect, as they grew into years, or were proper to be 
" informed The Stoic Philosophers were particularly 
* famous for allegorizing We have several treatises of 
" heathen Philosophers on the subject of allegorical inter* 
" pretation And from Philoso|)hers, Platonists, and 
" Stoics, the famous Origen is said to have derived a 
" great deal of his skill in allegorizing the books .of the 
" Old Testament." This he says, and yet at the 94th page 
he tells us, " That the Apostles, and particularly St. 
" Paul, wholly discarded all other methods of reasoning 
u used by Philosophers, except the allegorical: and set 
<( that up as the true and ONJ.Y reasoning proper to 
" brin- all men to the faith of CHRIST : and the Gen- 


" tiles were to be WHOLLY beat out of the literal way 
iC of anminxi. and to argue as became Jews. And the 

o o o 

u event of preaching the Gospel has been suited to 
" matters considered in this view and light. Tor we know 
u that the WISE did not receive the Gospel at first, and 
" that they were the latest Converts: I Hitch PLAINLY 
" arose from their using -maxims oj reasoning and din* 
" putlng WHOLLY opposite to those of Christians^ l]y 
these wise, can be meant none but the Pagan Philoso 
phers: and these, according to our Author, were altoge 
ther given up to mystery and allegory. Yet St. Paul, and 
the rest of the Apostles, who, he says, were likewise given 
up to the same method, could make no converts amongst 
these wise men. Why ? It would now inethinks have 
suited his talents as well as temper, to have told us, it 
>vas because two of a trade could not agree: No, says 
this incomparable Logician, it was because the 

i\ 2 


phers used maxims of reasoning and disputing wholly? 
opposite to the Christians. 

What now but the name and authority of Freethinking 
could hinder such a Writer from becoming the contempt 
of all who know either how to make, or to understand 
an argument? These men profane the light tkey receive 
from Revelation in employing it to rob the treasures of 
the Sanctuary. But REEIGIOX arrests them in the 
manner, and pronounces one common doom upon the 
whole race. 

" Ne IGNIS NOSTER facinopi praeluceat^ 

" Per quern eolendos ceasuit Piefcas Deos, 


Hence the fate that attends them all, in the inseparable 
connexion between impkty and blundering ; which always 
follow one another as the crime and the punishment. 

If it be asked then, What it is thatf hatsh so strangd j 
prejudiced our modern Reasoners against this ancient 
anode of information by TYPICAL aad SECONDARY senses? 
I answer, the folly of Fanatics,, who have abused it ia 
.support of the most abominable nonsense. But how un 
reasonable is this prejudice! Was there ever any thing 
rational or excellent amongst Men, that hath not been 
thus abused ? Is it any disparagement to the method of 
Geometers, that same conceited writers on Morality and 
Religion have of late taken it up, to give an air of weight 
and demonstration to the whimsies of pedantic importance ? 
Is there no truth of nature, or reasonableness of art, i$i 
Grammatical construction, because cabalistic Dunces 
have in every age abused it to pervert all human meaning? 
We might as well say that the ancient Egyptians did not 
write in Hieroglyphics, because Kircher, who endeavoured 
to explain them, hath given us nothing but his own 
visions, as that the ancient Jews had not types and scconr 

* Phad. 1. iv. IaU, 10. 



dary senses, because modem Enthusiasts have allegorized 
their whole Story. 

But I from these abuses would draw a very contrary 
conclusion. The rage of allegorizing in Religion hath in 
fected all ages: Can there be a stronger proof that the 
^original mode was founded in the common conceptions of 
mankind? The Pagans began the abuse] and the pesti 
lent infection sooa spread amongst the followers of true 


1. The early propagators 0f PAG A Kim, in order to 
<hide the weakness of the national Religion.; delivered 
many things in Types and Allegories. But a growing 
Superstition, accompanied with an equal advance an know* 
ledge,, made it at length impossible to screes ithe folly 
even of the less obnoxious parts from common observers. 
Their Successors therefore, to support its credit, went on 
where the others had left off; and allegorized all the tra 
ditional stories of their Gods into natural^ moral, and 
(Urine Entities, This, notwithstanding the extravagance of 
the means, fully answered the end. 

2. The JEWS ingrafted @ta thdr p^ecfecessors, just as 
the Pagans had done on theirs ; and with the same secular 
policy : For being -possessed with a national prejudice, 
that their Religion was to endure for ever, and yet seeing 
in it the marks of a carnal, temporary, and preparatory 
Dispensation, they cunningly allegorized its Rites and 
Precepts into a spiritual meaning, which covered every 
thing that was a real deficiency in a Religion which they 
considered as perfect and perpetual, Both these sorts of 
Allegorists therefore had reason in their rage. 

3. Afterwards came a set of CHRISTIAN Writers, 
brought out from amongst ,/etrsaiad Gentiles , and these 
too would needs be in the fashion, and allegorize their 
Religion likewise ; but with infinitely less judgment than 
the others; though alas! with equal success. In their 
hands, the end proved as hurtful to truth as the means 
%vere extravagant in nature. And how should itbeother- 

a 3 wise 


wise in a licligion both divine and perfect ? For in such 
an one, there was nothing cither to HIDE or to SUPPLY. 
We have shewn that types and secondary senses were em - 
ployed in the Jewish Religion for the sake of the C/inx- 
tian, of which the Jewish was the groundwork and pre 
paration. When therefore the Christ ian was come, these 
modes of information must needs cease, there being no 
farther occasion, nor indeed room, for them. As clear 
as this is to the lowest understanding, yet would some 
primitive Doctors of the Church needs contend with 
Jewish llabbins, and Pagan Philosophers, in all the rage 
of allegorizing: Deaf to the voice of Reason, which 
called aloud tp tell then], that those very arguments, 
which provcc} that there were, and must needs be, types 
and secondary senses in the Old Testament, proved as 
plainly that there neither were, nor could be any, in the 
JYccT. Thus, to the inexpressible damage of Christianity, 
they exposed a reasonable Service, and a perfected Dis 
pensation (wherq nothing was taught but Truth, plain, 
simple, and open) to the laughter and contempt of 
Infidels ; who, bcwi! o ercd in the universal maze of this 
allegoric mode of information, were never able to know 
what it was in its original, nor how to distinguish between 
the use and the abuse, 

To CONCLUDE, Let not the Header think I have been 
all this while leading him "out of the way, while I have 
engaged his attention to the book v/ Jon ; to the Cas$ of 
ABU AII AM ; and toTvPi-.s anii secondary senses under 
the Jewish Dispensation. All these strictly belong to the 
Argument : 

1. First, as they greatly contribute to shew the IIAR- 
ViON V of Truth ; and how all the parts of the .Jewish 
Dispensation support and illustrate one another. 

2. Secondly, as they contribute to shew the UNIFOR 
MITY of it; and how the Holy Spirit, quite throughout 
(TOD S grand economy, from his first giving of the Law 
tp the completion of it by the Gospel, observed the same 



-unvaried method of the GRADUAL COMMUNICATION of 

3. Thirdly, as -they -contribute to shew the JOLLY of 
ihose who contend that -the Christian Doctrine of a 
Future State was revealed to the early Jews ; since this 
opinion destroys all the reason -of -a secondary sense of 
Prophecies : and of how great importance the reality of 
this seme is to the -truth of Christianity hath been largely 
explained : For how can it be .known with certainty, from 
,the Prophecies .themselves, that they contain double senses, 
but from hence, tiiat the old Law was preparatory to, and 
.the rudiment of, the netc? How shall this relation be 
certainly knawn, but from hence, that no future statetii 
Rewards and Punishments is to he found, in the Mosaic 
Dispensation*? So close a dependence have all these imr 
Principles on one another. 


AND now, if the length of the Demonstration have 
not tired out the Reader s patience, or, to speak more 
properly, if length of time have not worn out his attention 
to the Subject, it may be proper (the Argument being 
here concluded) to take a retrospective view of the" whole, 
as it hath been inforced in this and the preceding Volume \.. 
For the deep Professor, who hath digested his Theology 
into Sums and Systems, and the florid Preacher, who 
never suffered his thoughts to expatiate beyond the limits 
of a pulpit-essay, will be ready to tell me, that I had pro 


MOSES; and that now I had written two large Volumes 
on that subject, " all that they could find in them \f ere 
Discourses on the foundation of ; iorality the origin of 
civjl and religious Society the. Alliance between Church 
.-and State the policy of Lawgivers tne Mysteries of the 
Priests- and ,th? opinions of the Greek Philosophers 
The Antiquity of their Hieroglyphics their 

* See Note [1-T] nt Uie.i-nd of .this Book. 

f Books "1. II. 111. & IV. V. VI. originally appeared in t\vo Vols.4tq. 

ii 4 Heroes 


Heroes and their Brute-worship. That, indeed, at last 
I speak a little of the Jewish policy; but I soon break 
away from it, as from a subject I would avoid, and 
employ the remaining part of the Volume on the Sacrifice 
of Isaac on the book of Job and on primary and se 
condary Prophecies. But what (say they) is all this to 
The Divine Legation of Mcsta ? 

Die, Posthume! ck tribus Cape His" 
To call the Topic I went upon a PARADOX, was said, 
\\ithout doubt, to my discredit; but not to see that I had 
proved it in form, will, -I am afraid, redound to their own. 
Yet I had already bespoke their best attention in the 
words of Cicero, who, I believe, often found himself in 
my situation : " Video hanc primarn ingressionem mcam 
non ex ORATORTS disputationibus cluctam, sed e media 
Philosophia repetitam, et earn quidem cum antiquani turn 
subobscuram, aut REPREHEXSIOXIS aliquid, aut certe 
ADMIRATIONS habituram. Nam aut mirabantur QUID 


satisfaciet res ipsa cognita, ut non sine causa ALTE re- 
petita videatur ; aut reprehendent, QUOD IXUSITATAS 


me saepe nova videre dicere inteliigo cum pervetcra dicara, 
sed inaudita plerisque*." 

But as this Apology hath not answered its purpose, 
and as the ARGUMENT is indeed drawn out to an un 
common length; raised upon a great variety of supports ; 
and sought out from every quarter of antiquity, and some 
times out of corners the most remote and dark ; it was 
the less to be admired if every inattentive Reader did not 
see their force and various purpose ; or if every attentive 
Keader could not combine them into the body of a com 
pleted Syllogism; and still less if the envious and the 
prejudiced should concur to represent these Volumes as 
an indigested and inconnected heap of discourses, thrown 
out upon one another, to disburthen a common-place. 
J or the satisfaction therefore of the more candid, who 

* Cicero, 


acknowledge the fairness of the attempt, who saw some 
thing of the progress of the argument, but misled by the 
notice of a remaining part, neglected to pursue the proof 
to the CoxcLUSjpx here deduced, I shall endeavour to 
lay open, in one plain and simple view, the whole conduct 
of these mysterious Volumes. 

Nor shall i neglect the other sort of Readers, though 
it be odds we part again as dissatisfied with one another 
as the Toyman of Bath and his Customer: Of whom the 
story goes, that a grave well-dressed man coming into the 
shop of this ingenious inventor, and reliever of the dis 
tresses of those who are too dull to know what they want, 
and too rich to be at ease with what they have, de 
manded to see some of his best reading-glasses ; which 
when he had tried to no purpose, he returned. The 
Toyman, surprised at so strange a phenomenon, gravely 
asked him, whether ever he had learnt to read ? to which 
the other as gravly replied, that if he had been so happy, 
he should have-had no need of his assistance. Now, before 
I bring the distant parts of my Argument to converge, for 
the use of these dim-sighted Gentlemen, may I ask them, 
without offence, a similar question? They have A NSWERED ; 
without asking ; but not with the same ingenuity. 

In reading the LAW and HISTORY of the JEWS, 
with all the attention I could give to them, amongst the 
many circumstances peculiar to that amazing Dispensa 
tion (from several of which, as I conceive, the divinity 
of its original may be fairly proved) these two particu 
lars most forcibly struck my observation, THE OMISSION" 


i)ENE. As unaccountable as the first circumstance 
appeared when considered separately and alone, yet when 
$et against the other, and their mutual relations examined 
and compared, the omission was not only well explained, 
tut was found to be an invincible medium for the proof 
of the DIVINE LEGATION OF MOSES: which, as Un 


^believers had been long accustomed to decry from thi 
very circumstance, I chose it preferably to any other. 
"The Argument -appeared to rue in a supreme degree 
strong and simple, imd not need-ing many words to intbrce 
,it, or, when intbrced, to make it well understood. 

RELIGION" hath always been held necessary to the 
support uf civil, SOCIETY, because human Laws alone 
are ineffectual to restrain men iVojujevil, with a force 
sufficient to carry on -the affairs of public regimen : and 
Bunder the common dispensation of Providence) a p UT 
TURK STATE of rewards and punishments is confessed 
to be as necessary to the support of REEK;IOX, -because 
.nothing else can remove the objections to God s moral 
^Government under a Providence so apparently unequal, 
whose phaeiiomena are apt to disturb the serious pro 
fessors of RELLGION with doubts and suspicions con- 
ing it, as it is of the essence of -religious profession 

believe, that God k a rcwarder of them that -diligently 

Moses, who instituted a RELi.oiox.nel a RT- PUBLIC 
arid incorporated them into-orie another, stands in<jlr 
amongst anrimt and modern Lawgivers, in teaching; a 
I-IELJGIOV, without the safiettQft, or even so much as the 


XJSii3iE\Tc:. The same Moses, with a singularity as 
great, by uniting the Bejjgion and^ejyj \ .-m-niunity of the 
Jews iaio one incorporar/" 1 - ;, n, . ; :le God, by natural 
consequence, tlieir supreme civil Af":- >; -r.rHte, wiiax l>v tfie 
n of Government arising froni thence became truly 
^;)d essentially a TIIK( . But as the Admkmtra^- 

tlun of Govenuneiit i ily follows its Form, that 

before us could i>c-no otiier than AN EXTU^OU-DIXARY on 
J-LQUAL PROVIDENCE. And such indeed not only the 
Jewish Lawgiver himself, but ail the. succeeding Rulers 
and Prophets of this Republic, hav ; c invariably repre-- 
sented it to be. In the mean time, aio Lawgiver or 
founder of Religion amougst any other People ever pn> 


-wised so singular a Distinction ; no Historian ever dared 
to record so remarkable a Prerogative. 

This being the true and acknowledged state of the 
case ; Whenever the Unbeliever attempts to disprove, and 
the Advocate of^Religion to support, the divinity of the 
Mosaic Dispensation, the obvious question (if each be 
willing to bring it to a speedy decision) will be, " Whether 
" the EXTRAORDINARY PROVIDENCE thus prophetically 
" promised, and afterwards historically recorded to be 
" performed, was REAL or PRETENDED only?" 

We Believers hold that it was REAL : and I, as an 
Advocate for Revelation, undertake to prove it was so ; 
employing for this purpose, as my medium, THE OMIS 
NISHMENTS. The argument stands thus : 

If Religion be necessary Jto civil Government, and if 
Religion cannot subsist, under the common dispensation 
of Providence, without a future state of Rewards and 
Punishments ; so consummate a Lawgiver would never 
have neglected to inculcate the belief of such a state, had 
he not been well assured that an EXTRAORDINARY PRO 
VIDENCE was indeed to be administered over his People^ 
Or were it possible he had been so infatuated, the impo- 
tcncy of a Religion wanting a future state must very soon 
have concluded in the destruction of his Republic : Yet 
nevertheless it flourished and continued sovereign for 
many ages. 

These t\vo proofs of the proposition (that an extra 
ordinary providence icas really adininktered) drawn from 
be reduced to the following SYLLOGISMS. 

I. Whatsoever Religion and Society have no future State 
for their support, must be supported by an extraordinary 

The Jewish Religion and Society had no future State 
jfor their support : 



Therefore the Jewish Religion and Society were sup 
ported by an extraordinary Providence. 

And again, 

IL The Ancient Lawgivers universally believed, that 
a Religion without a future State could be supported only 
by an extraordinary Providence. 

Moses, an Ancient Lawgiver, learned in all the wis 
dom of die Egyptians (die principal branch of which 
wisdom was inculcating the doctrine of a future state) 
instituted such a Religion : 

Therefore Moses believed that his Religion was sup 
ported by an extraordinary Providence. 

plain, simple, and convincing, in the opinion of the 
Author;, a PARADOX, in the representation of his 
Adversaries : Attempts of this nature being still attended 
with the fortune they have long undergone. JVilHam of 
Xewbourg, speaking of Gregory the Eighth, tells us, that 
lie was, " Vir plane sapicntire et vita? sinceritate con- 
" spicuus, femulationem Dei habens in omnibus secnn- 
" (him sclent lam \ et superstitiosanun coiisuetudinum 

quarum in Ecclesia per quorimdam rusticam sim- 
fi plicitatem citra Scripturarum auctoritatem multitudo 
" inplevit, Reprehensor acerrlnius. Uncle a qitibiistlam 
" mums (ifJcrcfis putatus est turhato per nimiam absti- 
" ncntiani ccrcbro delirare." This curious passage shews 
what hath been, and what is likely to be, the fate of all 
opposcrs of foolish and superstitious practices and 
opinions, when opposes are most wanted, that is to say, 
to be thought mad. Only one sees there was this dif 
ference between J Fill} aw s age ad our own. In the 
time of good Gregory, they were the People of least 
discretion who passed this judgment on every Reformer s 
head-piece ; whereas in our times, they are the more 
discreet who have made this discovery, 

Our Author s adversaries proved to be of two sorts, 
6 FUEE- 


doniedTIierMajor of the two Syllogisms; These, the 
Minor : yet one could not be done without contradicting 
the universal voice of Antiquity ; nor the other, without 
explaining away the sense, as well as letter, of sacred 
Scripture. Had it not been for this odd combination, 
my Demonstration of the Divine Legation of Moses- 
had not only been as strong but as short too as any of 
Euclid s : whose theorems, as Hobbes somewhere ob 
serves, should they ever happen to be connected with 
the passions and interests of men, would soon become 
as much matter of dispute and contradiction as any moral 
or theological Proposition whatsoever. 

It was not long, therefore, before I found that the 
discovery of this important Truth would engage me in. 
a full dilucidation of the three following Pi -o posit ions-- 

1. " That inculcating the doctrine of a future state of 
t rewards and punishments, is necessary to the weii-h^ing 
" of civil Society/ 

2. " That all mankind, especially the most wise and 
" learned nations of Antiquity, have concurred in be* 
" licving and teaching, that this doctrine was of such 
" use to civil Society." 

3. " That the doctrine of a future state of rewards 
" and punishments is not to be found in, nor did make 
" part of, the Mosaic Dispensation." 

Neither a short nor an easy task. The two first 
requiring a severe search into th lleltghm, the Politic*, 
and the Philosophy of ancient times : And, the latter, a 
minute examination into the nature ami genius of t/ie 
Hebrew Constitution. 

To the first part of this enquiry, therefore, I assigned 
the first Volume of this work; and to the other, the 


I. The first Volume begins with proving the MAJOR 
of the first Syllogism, that whatsoever Religion .and 



Society hare no future State for their support > must be 
supported by an extraordinary Providence. In order to 
which, the FIRST PROPOSITION was to be inforccd, That 
the inculcating the doc trine of a future state of rewards 
and punishments is necessary to the icell-beiug of Society. 

This is done in the following manner J3y shewing 
that CIVIL SOCIETY, which was instituted as a remedy 
against force and injustice, falls short, in many instances, 
of its effects as it cannot, by its own proper force, 
provide for the observance of above one third part of 
moral duties ; and, of that third, but imperfectly ; and 
further, which is a matter of still greater importance, that 
it totally wants the first of those t\vo great hinges on 
which Government is supposed to turn, and without 
which it cannot be carried on, namely, REWARD and 
PUNISHMENT. Some other coactive power was there* 
fore to be added to civil Society, to supply its wants and 
imperfections. This power is shewn to be no other 
than RELIGION ; which, teaching the just Government 
of the Deity, provides for all the natural deficiencies, of 
aivil Society. But this government, it is seen, can be no 
otherwise supported than by the general belief of a 
future sj ate ; or of an extraordinary Providence, that is, 
by a Dispensation of things very different from what we 
see administered at present. 

This being proved, the discourse proceeds to remove 
objections. The Reader observes, that the steps and 
gradations of this capital truth advance thus, A future 
state is necessary as it supports Religion Religion is 
necessary as it supports . Morality And Morality as it 
supports (though it be reciprocally supported by) civil 
Society, which only can procure such accommodations 
of life as man s nature requires. Hence I concluded, that 
the Doctrine of a future state was necessary to civil 
Society, under the present administration of Providence. 

Now there are various kinds or rather degrees of 
Some, though they own Morality to be 



necessary to Society, yet deny Religion to be necessary. 
Others again deny it even to Morality.- As botli equally 
attempt to break the chain of my reasoning, both come 
equally under my examination. And, opportunely for my 
purpose, a great Name hi the first instance, and a great 
Book, in the second, invited me to this entertainment. 

1. The famous M. IJ AY LK had attempted to prove, 
that lleliglon was not necessary to Society ; and that, 
simple morality, a-s distinguished from Religion, might 
well supply its place : which Mora-Iky too, an ATIH;;V O 
might completely possess. His arguments in support of 
these propositions I have carefully examined : and having 
occasion, when I came to the last of them, to enquire 
into the true foundation of Afomlity, I state all its pre 
tences, consider all its advantages, and shew that OBI. i- 
ciATiox, properly so called, proceeds from WILL, and 
from WILL only. This enquiry was directly to Tny point, 
us the result of it proves that the morality of the stthcixt 
must be without any Jtr u e found ati on, and consequently 
weak^and unstable. It had a further propriety, as the 
Religion, whose divine original I am here attempting to- 
demonstrate. has founded moral ohliguthm in // ///only; 
and had a peculiar expediency likewise, as it is become 
the fashion of the times to seek tor this < jbtdidatioH any 
where but there where Religion has placed it. 

2. But M ANDEVILLE, the Author of the Fable of the 
.Bees, went a large step farther ; and pretended to prove 
that MORALITY was so far from being necessary to 
Society, that it was vice and not virtue which rendered 
states flourishing amTTiappy. This c xecrable Doctrine, 
that would cut away my Argument l-.y the roots, wa* 
lrc$ented to the People \\ith much laboured art and 
plausible insinuation. It was necessary therefore to 
Confute and expose it. This 1 have done with the same 
care, but with better faith than it was inibrced. 

In this manner I endeavoured to prove the MAJOR of the first Syllogism : and v,ith this 



the first book of the Divine Legation of Moses con 

II. The second Book begins \vith establishing the 
MAJOR of the second Syllogism, That the ancient Law 
givers universally believed that a Religion without a 
future state could be supported only by an extraordinary 
Providence. In order to which, the SECOND PROPOSI 
TION was to be inforced, That ait mankind, especially the 
most wise and learned tuitions of Antiquity, have con 
curred in believing and teaching, that the Doctrine of a 
future state was necessary to the well-being of civil 

The proof of this proposition divides itself into two 
parts The conduct of the LAWGIVERS ; and the opinion 
of the PH i LOSOPH KRS. 

The first part is the subject of the present Book ; as 
the second part is of the following. 

In proving this proposition from the conduct of the 
Lawgrcers, 1 shew, 

i. Their, care to PROPAGATE Religion in general, 
i . As it appears from the effects, the state of Religion 
every where in the civilized World. 2. As it appears 
from the jft/M, such as their universal pretence to 
inspiration, in order to instil the belief of the Divine 
Superintendent over human aiiairs ; and such as their 
universal practice in prefacing their Laics, in order to 
establish the belief of Ltiat Supenntcndci:cy, And here 
it should be observed, thut in proving their care to pro 
pagate Religion in general, I prove their care to propagate 
ilic doctrine of a jutitra. state (f Rez?arci*s and Punish- 
me iils ; since there never was a formed Religion in the 
World, the Jewish excepted, of which this Doctrine did 
not make an essential part. 

2. But I shew, in the second place, their care to pro 
pagate this Doctrine, with more than common attention 
and assiduity. And as the most effectual method they 
employed to this end was the instiuuion of. the MYSTE 


RIES, a large account is given of their rise and progress, 
from Egypt into Greece, and from thence, throughout 
the civilized world. I have attempted to discover the 
APOPPHTA, or hidden doctrines of these Mysteries, ^ 
which were THE _UNtTYjOF_ THE GODHEAD and the 


Worship of dead men, deified. This discovery not only 
confirms all that is advanced, concerning the rise, pro 
gress, and order of the several specieses of Idolatry, but 
clears up and rectifies much embarras and mistake even 
of die most celebrated Moderns, such as Cudzvorth, 
Stilling fleet, Pridcauv, Newt on, &c. who, contrary to 
the tenour of Holy Scripture, in order to do imaginary 
honour to Religion, have ventured to maintain, that_Me 
one true God was generally known and worshipped in the 
Pagan World ; for, finding many, in divers countries, 
speaking of the one true God, they concluded, that he 
must needs have a national Worship. Now the Dis 
covery of the *rJ|jH}TA of the Mysteries enables us to 
explain the perfect consistency between sacred and pro 
fane Antiquity ; which, left to speak for themselves, 
concur to inform us of this plain and consistent truth, 
" That the Doctrine of the one, true God was indeed 

* . !. - "" 

taught in all places, but as a profound secret, to the FEW, 
in the celebration of their mysterious Rites ; while, in 
the Land of JUDEA alone, he had a public and national 
jrorship" For to the Hebrew PEOPLE alone, (as Eu- 
sebius expresses it) was reserved the honour of being 
INITIATED into the knowledge of the Creator of all 
things. And of this difference, God himself speaks by 
the Prophet, / have not spoken IN SECRET, ix A 
DARK PLACE OF THE EARTH* And the holy Apostle 
Paul informs us of the consequence of that mysterious 
manner of teaching the true God amongst the Pa<mn 

O c? " O 

nations, that when, by this means, they came to the 
knowledge of him, they g/ori/ied him not as 

* Isaiah xlv. 19. f Rom. i, 21. 

VOL. VI. I To 


To confirm and illustrate my account of the M VSTEUIKS, 
I subjoin a Dissertation on the sixth Book of Jlrgil\* 
./KVf.-v.s- ; and another on the ATetanwrphosis of Aptilthis. 
The first of which books is shewn to be one continued 
clt -script ion of the Eleusinian MysAri^ ; and the other 
to be purposely written to recommend the use and 
efficacy of the Pagan Mysteries in general. 

And here the attentive Reader will observe, that 
throughout the course of this whole argument, on the 
conduct of the ancient LAWGIVERS, it appears, that 
all the fundamental principles of their Policy were bor 
rowed from EGYPT. A truth which will be made greatly 
subservient to the minor of the second Syllogism ; that 
Moses, though learned in all the Wisdom of Egypt, yet 
} instituted the Jewish Religion and Society without a 
future State. 

From this, and from what has been said above of 
M o R A L o B LI G A T i o x , th e intel 1 igeiit R ea (.1 cr will per- 
ceive, that, throughout the D ninc Legation, I have all 
along endeavoured to select for my purpose such kiinl 
of arguments, in support of the pctrtieiilar question in 
hand, as may, at the same time, illustrate the truth of 
Revelation in general, or serve as principles to proceed 
upon in the progress of the present Argument. Of 
which will be given, as occasion serves, several other 
instances in the course of this review. And now having 
shewn- the Legislators care to propagate Religion in- 
general, and the Doctrine of a future state of Rewards 
and Punishments in particular (in which is p.een their 
sense of the inseparable connexion between them) ; I go 
on, to explain the contrivances they employed to per 
petuate the knowledge and influence of them : by which 
it appears that, in their opinion, RELIGIOX was not a 
temporary expedient, useful only to secure their own 
power and authority, but a necessary support to civil 

$OCJCt^ : "If 

i. The 


1. The first instance of this care was, as we shew, 
tected by the Laics of the State, in all places where they 
were concerned. But as Men, ignorant of true Religion, 
could hardly avoid falling into mistakes in contriving the 
mode of this Establishment, 1 have therefore (the subject 

of rny Work being no idle speculation, but such a one as 
affects us in our highest interests, as Men and Citizens) 
attempted to deliver the true Theory of the Alliance 
between Church and State, as the best defence of the 
justice and equity of an ESTABLISHED RELIGION. 

2. The second instance of their care, I shew to have 
been the allowance of a GENERAL TOLERATION; which 
as it would, for the like reason, be as imperfectly framed 

-as an Establishment, I have ventured to give the true 
Theory of that likewise. The ancient Lawgiver contrived 
to establish one mode of Religion, by allying it to the 
State, for the sake of its DURATION : He tolerated other 
modes of it, for the sake of their INFLUENCE, for a Religion 
forced upon man, has none ; and the Lawgiver concerns 
himself with Religion only for the sake of its influence. 

.Discoursing upon this Subject, I was naturally led to 
vindicate true Religion from an aspersion of Infidelity: 
Where, I shew, that the first persecution for Religion 
was not that which was committed, but that which was 
undergone by the Christian Church : And that the ill 
success attending its propagation amongst barbarous 
Nations in our times, is altogether owing to the prepos 
terous method employed for that purpose. And with 
this, the second Book of the Divine Legation concludes. 
III. The third Book goes on in supporting the MAJOR 
of the second Syllogism, by the opinions of the PHILOSO 
PHERS. For as the great waste and ravages f time have 
destroyed most of the Monuments of ancient Legislation, 
I held it not improper to strengthen my position of the 

sense of their Lawgivers, by that of their Sages and Phi- 

* iosophers. In this is shewn, 

I 2 i. From 


1 . From their own words, the conviction they in general 
had of the necessity of the doctrine of a Jut lire state of 
Rewards and Punishments to civil society. And, to set 
this conviction in the strongest light, I endeavour to 
prove, that even such of then) (viz. the several sects of 
Grecian Philosophers) who did not believe a future state 
of Rewards and Punishments, did yet, for the sake of 
Society, diligently teach and propagate it. That they 
taught it, is confessed ; that they did not believe it, was 
my business to prove : which I have done by shewing, 
i. That they all thought it lawful to say one thing, and 
think another. 2. That tliey constantly practised what 
they thus thought to be lawful: and, 3. That they 
practised ft on the very Doctrine in question. To explain 
and verify the two first of these assertions, I had occa 
sion to eiwjiiirr into the rise, progress, perfection, decline, 
and genius of the ancient Greek Philosophy, under all 
its several divisions. In which, (as its rise and progress 
are shewn to have been from Egypt) still more materials 
are lard in for inforcing the minor proposition of the 
second Syllogism. I then proceed to a more particular 
inquiry into the sentiments of each sect of Phile.t>phy, 
on this- point ; and shew from the character asid genius 
of each School, and from tlie Writings of each man, that 
none of them did indeed believe the Doctrine via future 
stute of Rewards and Punishments. At the same time 
it appears, from almost every proof brought for this pur 
pose, that they all thought the Doctrine to be of the 
highest utility to the State. Here,, in examining the 
philosophy of PYTHAGORAS, the subject led me, to con 
sider his- so. celebrated AJetCMpxychQ&s ; in which r I take 
occasion to speak of the erigin of the Pagan Fables, and 
the nature of the Metamerpttuni* of Ovid, here s-hcwn to 
be a Papular History of Providence, very regularly and 
artfully deduced from the most early times to his OWD : 
From the whole I draw this conclusion, " that Pytha 
goras, who so sedulously propagated this species of a 



future state of Rewards and Punishments (the Metemp 
sychosis) that he was thought by some to be the author 
of it, considered it only as ja_cominodious Fable to re 
strain the unruly populace." 

- 2. To support this fact, it is shown, in the next place, 
that these Philosophers not only did not, but that they 
could not possibly believe the Doctrine of a future state 
of Rewards and Punishments, because the belief of it 
contradicted two Metaphysical principles universally held 
and believed by them, concerning the nature of GOD and 
of the SOUL; which were, that the Deity could not hurt 
any om\ and that the soul UYAV part of the substance, of 
the Deity, and resolvable again into him. In explaining 
and verifying their reception of this latter principle, I 
take occasion to speak of its original; which, I prove, 
was Grecian and not Egyptian ; as appears from the 
genius and character of the two Philosophies; though 
the spurious books going under the name of Hennes, but 
indeed written by the later Platonists, would persuade us 
to the contrary. The use of this inquiry likewise (i. e. 
concerning the origin of this principle) will be seen when 
we come to settle the character qf,M$se$, as aforesaid. 
But, with regard to the belief of the Philosophers on both 
points, besides the direct and principal use of it, for the 
support of the major of the second Syllogism, it hath 
(as I said before, it was contrived my argument? should 
have) two further uses; the one, to serve as a principle 
in the progress of my general Argument: the other, to 
illustrate the truth of Revelation in general. For, 1st, 
it will be a sufficient answer to that solution of the 
Deists, (to be considered hereafter) that J/,v did not j 
teach the Doctrine of a future state because he did not \ 
believe /Y, since it is shewn by the strongest evidence, 
that the not believing a doctrine so useful to Society, was 
esteemed no reason why the Legislator should not pro 
pagate it. 2. It is a convincing proof ot the expediency 
of the Gospel of Jesus, that the Sages of Greece, with 

13 *;, whom 


whom all the wisdom of the Wise was supposed to be 
deposited, had philosophised themselves out of one of the 
most evident and useful truths with which mankind has 
any concern ; and a full justification of the severity with 
which the holy Apostles always speak of the Philoso 
phers and the Philosophy of Greece, since it is hereby 
seen to he directed only against these pernicious princi 
ples ; and not, as Deists and Fanatics concur to repre 
sent it, a condemnation of human learning in general. 

3. But as now, it might be objected, " that by this re 
presentation, we lose on the one hand what we gain on 
the other; and that while we shew the expediency of the 
Gospel, we run a risque of discrediting its reasonableness-, 
for that nothing can bear harder upon this latter quality, 
than that the best and wisest persons of Antiquity did not 
believe that which the Gospel was sent to propagate, 
namely, the Doctrine of a future state of Rewards and 
Punishments/ As this, I say, might be objected, we have 
given (besides explaining on what absurd principles their 
unbelief rested) a further answer; and, to support this 
answer, shewn, that the two extremes into which Divines 
have usually run, in representing the state and condition of 
revealed Religion, are attended with great and real mis 
chiefs to it; while the only view of Antiquity which yields 
solid advantage to the Christian Cause, is such a one as 
is here represented for the true: Such a one as shews 
natural Reason to be clear enough to percehc TRUTH, 
and the necessary deductions from it when proposed, but 
not generally strong enough to discover it. He, who of 
all the Pagan World best knew its force, and was in that 
very state in which only a true judgment could be passed, 
has with the greatest ingenuity confessed this truth, " Nam 
" ncque tarn est acris acies in naturis hominum et ingeniis, 
" ut res tantas quisquam, nisi monstratus possit videre; 
" neque tanta tamen in rebus obscuritas, ut eas peritus 
" acri vir ingenio cernat, si modo aspexerit." In ex^ 
plaining this matter, it is occasionally shewn, that the 



great and acknowledged superiority of the modern Systems 
of Deistical Morality above the ancient, in point of ex 
cellence, is entirely owing to the unacknowledged, and 
perhaps unsuspected, aid of Revelation. 

Thus the- Reader sees, in what manner we have endea 
voured to prove the MAJOR PROPOSITIONS of the two 
Syllogisms, that whatsoever Religion ami Society hare 
no future State for their .support, must be supported by 
an extraordinary Provide nee. And that, The ancient 
Laicgivers universally believed, that a Religion icithout 
a future, State could be supported only by an extraor 
dinary Providence. For having shewn, that Religion and 

7 o o 

Society were unable, and believed to he unable, to sup 
port themselves under an ordinary Providence, without 
a future State ; If they were supported without that 
Doctrine, it could be, and could be believed to be, only 
by an extraordinary Providence. 

But now as the proof is conducted through a long 
detail of circumstances, shewing the absolute necessity of 
Religion to civil Society; and the sense which all the 
wise and learned amongst the ancients had of that neces 
sity; lest this should be abused to countenance the idle 
and impious Conceit that RI;LIGIOX WAS Tin: IXYKX- 
TIOX OF POLITICIANS, I concluded the third Book 
and the Volume together, with proving that the Conceit 
is both IMPKKTIXF.XT and FA LSI-;. 

i. Impertinent^ for that, were this account of the origin 
of Religion true, it would not follow, that the thing itself 
was visipjoarv ; but, on the contrary, most real, evidently 
so even from that universal utility, on which this its pre 
tended origin is supported. Indeed, against this utility^ 
paradoxical men, or men in a paradoxical humour, have 
often reasoned; such as BAYLK ; PLI/TAHCII, and BACOX ; 
Their arguments are here examined : And the Master 
sophism, which runs through the reasoning of all three, 
is detected and exposed. 

14 2. False ; 


2. False.] for that, in fact, Religion existed before the 
civil Magistrate was in being. In proving this point, the 
matter led me to speak of the origin of Idolatry ; to dis 
tinguish the several species of it; to adjust the order in 
which they arose out of one another ; and to detect the 
ends of the later Platonists, in their attempts to turn the 
whole into an ALLEGORY (in which the reasonings of a 
late Writer in his Letters concerning Mythology are 
considered). And because the rage of ALLEGORISING 
had spread a total confusion over all this matter, The 
origin, and progress of the folly, and the various views of 
its sectators in supporting it, are here accounted for and 

But my end and purpose in all this, was not barely to 
remove an objection against the Truths delivered in this 
place, but to prepare a reception for those which are to 
follow: For if Religion were so useful to Society, and 
yet not the invention of the Magistrate, we must seek for 
its original in another quarter; either from NATURE or 

Such is the subject-matter of the FIRST Volume of 
The Divine Legation: which, as it was thought proper 
to publish separately, I contrived should not only contain 
a part of that general Argument, but should likewise be 
a complete Treatise of itself, establishing one of the most 
important Truths with which man lias any concern ; 
of this truth, I have entered into a long detail of some 
capital articles of Antiquity, I presume I shall not need 
an apology. 


We come now to the SECOND VOLUME of The Divine 
Legation^ which is employed in proving the MINOR PRO 
POSITION of the two Syllogisms; the first, that the 
Jewish Religion and Society had no future state for their 

support : 


support: the other, that Moses, fin ancient -Lawgiver, 
and learned in all the Wisdom of Egypt, purposely in 
stituted such a Religion, in order to which the THIRD 
GENERAL PROPOSITION was to be inforccd ; That the 
Doctrine of a future state of Rewards and Pitnishmenlx 
is not to be found in, nor did make part oj\ the Mosaic 
Dispensation. But in proving the MINOR, a method some 
thing different from that observed in proving the MAJOR 
PROPOSITIONS was to be followed. These, in the first 
Volume, were proved succe.sxtie/j/ and in order. But here 
the MINOR PROPOSITIONS are inforced all the way 
together. And this difference arises from the reason of 


the thing; the facts, brought to prove the doctrine to be 
omitted, do, at the same time, accidentally shew that the 
Omission was designed : And the reasons, brought to 
prove the uses in a designed omission, necessarily shew 
that the Doctrine was omitted. 

To proceed therefore with the subject of the SECOND 

IV. I just before observed, that the conclusion of the 
first Volume, which detected the absurdity and falsity 
of the Atheistic Principle, that Religion was an in 
vention of Politicians, and a creature of the State, 
opened the way to a fair inquiry whether its true original 
was not as well from REVELATION as from NATURAL 

In the introduction therefore to this second Volume, I 
took the advantage which that opening afforded me, of 
shewing that the universal pretence to Revelation proves 
tome Revelation must be true : That this true Revela 
tion must have some characteristic marks to distinguish 
it from the false : And that these marks are to be found 
in the Institutions of MOSES. 

But this was only by way of introduction-, and to 
lead the Reader more easily into the main road of our 
inquiry; by shewing that we pursued no desperate ad- 
Venture, while we endeavoured to deduce the divinity 



of Moses s Law from the circumstances of the Law 

I proceeded then to the proof of the MINOR PRO 
POSITIONS, that the Jewish Religion and Society had no 
future State for their support: arid that Moses, an an 
cient Lawgiver, and learned in all the wisdom of Egypt, 
purposely instituted such a Religion. To evince these 
truths with sufficient evidence, the nature of that In 
stitution was to be first understood ; which again required 
a general knowledge, at least, of the manners and genius 
of the -Hebrew People, and of the character and abilities 
of their Lawgiver. Now these having been entirely 
fashioned on Egyptian models, it was further expedient 
that we should know the state of Egyptian supersition 
and learning in that early period. 

i. In order to this, the following proposition is ad 
vanced, that the Egyptian learning celebrated in Scrip 
ture, and the Egyptian superstition there condemned, 
were the very learning and superstition represented bif 
the Greek Writers as the honour and opprobiuni of 
that kingdom. Where I first state the question; and 
then shew the equal extravagance of each of those two 
parties amongst the learned, who have been accustomed 
to advance or to depress the high antiquity of Egypt. 

i. I corroborate the Proposition, first, by FACT, the 
testimony of holy Scripture, and of the ancient Greek 
Writers, set together and supporting one another; and 
both supported by cii cir.iistanccs regarding the peculiar 
situation of the land of Egypt. .And here the objections 
of the author of the Sue red and Prophmie History of 
the II - arid, connected, frightened by the common panic of 
the high antiquity of Egypt, arc confuted and exposed. 

Secondlv, by RKA.SOX, in an argument drawn from the 
nature, origin, and various uses of their so famed HIERO 
GLYPHICS. Where it is shewn, 

i. That this .species of writing was employed by the 

Egyptians as the vehicle of learning, even after the invcn- 

1 1 


tion of LETTERS : for which no good reason can be 
assigned but this, that they were applied to the same i 
purpose before. Now LETTERS were in use amongst 
them before the time of Moses. 

2. Again, it is shewn that the ONIROCRITJCS borrowed 
their art of deciphering dreams from hieroglyphic Symbols: 
but hieroglyphic Symbols were the mysterious vehicle of 
the civil science and of the Theology of the Egyptians. 
Now ONIUOCRITIC or the art of interpreting of dreams 
was practised in the time of Joseph. 

3. And again, It is shewn that ANIMAL-WORSHIP in 
Egypt arose from the mysterious use of the same hiero 
glyphic Symbols. Now A \ i MA L-woKsii IP was established 
amongst them before the time of Moses. 

From all this, it appears, that EGYPT was of that 
high antiquity which Scripture and the best Greek Writers 
concur to represent it. By which, we come to under 
stand what were the specific manners and superstitions of 
Egypt in the time of Moses; these being, as it now 
appears, identically the same with what the Greek 
Writers have delivered to us. 

In the course of this proof from Reason, which opens 
at large the nature, origin, and various kinds of EGYP 
TIAN HIEROGLYPHICS, I interweave (as the explanation 
of my subject necessarily required) a detailed history of 
the various modes of ancient communication amongst men, 
as well by real and literary characters, as by words and 
action , and shew how SPEECH and WRITING ran parallel 
in their progress ; and influenced, and were influenced by, 
one another. On the same account, when I come to the 
origin of BRUTE-WORSHIP, I give the history of the 
various modes of ancient Idolatry, in the order in which 
they rose, one out of another. 

These things I have not only made to serve in sup- 
port of the question I am here upon, but likewise in 
support of one question preceding, and of one which is to 
j dioic. 



For in the history of the various modes of undent com- 
liiunieuiion was laid, as the Rentier will find, the founda 
tion of my discourses on the nature of undent Pro 
phecies in the sixth Book. 

And, in the history of the various modes of (indent 
Idolatry, the Reader hath a necessary supplement to 
\\lrat had been said before on the same subject, in the 
latter end of the third book, against the Atheist s pre 
tended origin of Religion. 

So studious have I been to observe, what a great master 
of Reason lays down as the rule and test of good order in 
Composition, That every former part may give strength 
to all that foilou- ; and every latter bring light unto all 
before *. 

But the high antiquity of Egypt, though proved from 
Antiquity itself, seemed not to be enough secured, while 
the authority of one great modern remained entire, and 
his reasonings unanswered. 

In the next place, therefore, I examine Sir ISAAC 
XKW TON S Chronology of the Egyptian Empire-, a 
Chronology erected on the supposed identity of Osiris 
and Sesostris ; uhich is a fancy that not only contradicts 
all sacred as well as profane antiquity, but, what is still 
more, the very nature of tilings. 

In the course of this confutation, the causes of that 
endless eon fusion in the early Greek history and My- 
tlwlogy, are inquired into and explained ; Which serves, 
at the same time, to confirm and illustrate all that hath 
been occasionally said in the latter end of the third book, 
and, here again, in this fourth, concerning -the origin 
and progress of Idolatry the genius of Pagan Religion 
the (i entile modes of worship and their Theological 

Thus far concerning the high antiquity of Egypt. 
AVhich, besides the immediate purpose of leading us into 
the true idea of the Jcidsh Institution in general, ha,th. 
tht sc further uses : 

* Hooker, 


We have seen, in the foregoing Volume, that EGYPT, 
as it was most famed for the arts of legislation, so it most 
ol all inculcated the doctrine of a future state of Rewards 
and Punishments. Now, if Egypt were indeed of tlie 
high antiquity here assigned unto it, that doctrine must 
needs be of national belief, at the time the Hebrews lived 
there in slavery. But then they having, as we find in 
Scripture, thoroughly imbibed the religious notions of the 
place, must needs be much prejudiced in favour of so 
reasonable and flattering a Doctrine : Consequently their 
Lawgiver, who likewise had been bred up in all the 
learning of Egypt, would, if he had acted only by human 
direction, have, in imitation of his Masters, taken ad 
vantage of this favourable prejudice to make the doctrine 
of a future state the grand SANCTION of his Religion 
and Law. 

Again, the proof of the high Antiquity of Egypt was 
necessary to vindicate sacred Scripture; which all along 
declares for that Antiquity ; and which the DEIST having 
endeavoured to take advantage of, in opposing Moses s 
pretence to inspiration, some imprudent BELIEVKKS were 
grown not unwilling to explain away. Sir Isaac Newton s 
CHRONOLOGY afforded them the aid they wanted : And 
while it offered itself in support of the Bible-divinity, they 
seemed little attentive to the liberties it had taken v\ itii 
the Bible- history. 

2. In order to bring on this Truth of the high antiquity 
of Egypt nearer to my purpose, I proceeded to the 
second Proposition, That the Jewish People were ex 
tremely fond of Egyptian manners., and did frequently 
jail into Egyptian superstitions : and that many of the 
Laws green to them by the ministry oj Closes icerc 
instituted partly in compliance to their prejudices, ayd 
paj tly in opposition to those superstitions. In the proof 
of the first part of this Proposition, I shew the high/;;x;- 
bability that the Law was instituted ^ith reference to 
Egyptian manners; and through the proof of the &e- 

cO ill, 


cond, is deduced a demonstration that it was actually so 

For a further illustration of this Argument, I give an 
historical account of the degeneracy of the Hebrew People, 
and of their amazing propensity to imitate the manners 
of Egypt, from the time that Moses was first sent upon 
his Mission, to their entire settlement in the land of Judea : 
Which fully shews (what will stand us in stead hereafter) 
that a People so perverse and headstrong needed, in the 
construction of their civil and religious Institutions, ail 
possible curbs to disorder: Now of all such curbs, the 
doctrine : of a future state was ever held the chief in 
ancient policy; and as this doctrine was so peculiarly 
Egyptian, they must needs have the most favourable 
prejudice towards it. 

But then, as it might perhaps be objected, that while 
I am endeavouring to get this way into the interior of the 
Jewish Constitution, I open a back door to the ravages 
of Infidelity : it was thought necessary, in order to pre 
vent the Deist s taking advantage of the great Truth con 
tained in the preceding Proposition (which is the second), 
to guard it by the following (which is the third), viz. That 
Mws.s Egyptian Learning, and the Laics instituted in 
compliance to the People s prejudices, are no reasonable 
objection to the divinity of his HMMuA Where, in ex 
plaining the first part, which shews what this learning 
was, and how well it suited with Moses s Mission, I had 
occasion to inquire into the origin and use of the SCHOOLS 
OF THE PROPHETS : Which the Jleader will find of this 
further use, viz. To give strength and support to what 
is said in the sixth Book of the NATURE OE THE JEWISH 
PROPHECIES ; and particularly to what is there observed 
of GIIOTIUS S iatal error, in .his modc-of interpreting them. 

And in explanation of the scctmd part, having proved 
the Proposition, That to institute Laws in compliance to 
popular prejudices, is no reasonable objection to their 
divine original : having proved this, I say, from the 



nature of things; the Discourse proceeds to examine 
all the Arguments which have been urged in support of 
the contrary opinion, by HERMAN "\Vrrsrus, in his 
learned Treatise intitled JEgyptiaca, that Book having 
been publicly recommended by Dr. H aterland, for a 
distinct and solid confutation of Spencers DC Legibus 
Hebrceorum ritualibus. 

And the answer to Witsius s last argument bringing 
into question the intrinsic value of the ritual Law ; the 
famous character of it given by the Prophet EZKKIEL, 
of statutes that zcere not good, and judgments whereby 
they should not live is explained in a large analysis of 
the whole Prophecy, against an old foolish notion revived 
by Dr. Shuckford, that these Statutes and Judgments, 
here said to be given by God, were the Pagan Idolatries, 
which, in defiance of God, they took without leave. 

But I go yet further in support of the fourth Proposi 
tion, and prove, that these very circumstances of Mose$s 
Egyptian Learning, and the Laics instituted in com 
pliance to the Peoples prejudices, arc a strong confir 
mation of the divinity of his ^Mission. 

1st, For, that one bred up in the arts of Egyptian 
Legislation could never, on his own head, have thought 
of reducing an unruly people to government, on maxims 
of Religion and Policy, fundamentally opposite to all 
the principles of Egyptian WISDOM, at that -time the 
universal Model on which all the Legislators worked, 
in reducing a barbarous People to Society. Yet Moses 
went upon principles diametrically opposite to that 
WISDOM, when he enjoined the PUBLIC worship of the 
vne true God only, awl OMITTED the doctrine of a future 
state of Reicards and Punishments, in tiie institution of 
his Law and Religion. 

2clly, For, that One who falsely pretended to receive 
the whole frame of a national Constitution from God, 
would never have risked his pretensions by a ritual 
Law, which the people might see was politically insti 


tuted, partly in compliance to their prejudices, and partly 
in opposition to Egyptian superstitions. 

Here, all the imaginable motives are inquired into, 
which MOSES, though a mere human Lawgiver, might 
have had to act in the manner lie did ; and these motives 
are shewn to be insufficient to induce a wise Legislator 
thus to act. In conclusion, it is made apparent, that 
a ritual, contrh-cd to oppose to the reigning superstitious ; 
and, at the same time, to prefigure, by its typical nature, 
all the essential parts of a future Dispensation, contains 


with this the fourth Book concludes. 

V. What hath been hitherto said, was to let the Reader 
Into the genius of the Jewish Policy in general, in order 
to his judging more exactly of the peculiar nature of its 
Government ; that, from thence, he might be enabled to 
determine, with full certainty, of the matters in question, 
as they are contained in the two MINOR terms. 

1. Th&Jtfth Book, therefore, comes still nearer to the 
point, and shews, that the Government instituted by 
Moses was a THEOCUACV, properly so called, where 
God himself was the supreme civil Magistrate. It begins 
with assigning and settling the true reason of the sepa 
ration of the posterity of Abraham from the rest of 
mankind;- because this separation has been greatly mis 
understood - but principally because the true reason of 
the separation leads us into the use and necessity of a 
Theocrattc form of Government. 

In evincing this necessity, the justice of the Laic for 
punisltiiig Idol-wqr&hip ca pit ally , under a Theocracy, is 
explained : And because the Deist hath been accustomed 
to urge this .Law against the divine original of the whole 
Institution, it is here justified at large, on the principles 
of natural equity : Which serves, as well a past purpose, 
viz. the adding strength and support to what hath been 
said on the subject of TULI.UA nox. in the second Book; 



as it does at present, viz. to confirm the reality of this 
Theocracy, which a celebrated dissenting Minister has 
preposterously gone out of his way to bring in question : 
whose reasoning, therefore, is examined and exposed. 

2. This THEOCRACY, thus proved to be necessary, 
was likewise of the most easy introduction, as I have 
shewn from the notions and opinions of those times, 
concerning tutelary Deities. And here, speaking of the 
method of Divine Providence, in applying the prejudices 
and manners of men to the great ends of his Dispen 
sations, I observe, that He is always accustomed to 
impress on his institution, some characteristic note of 
difference, to mark it for his own : which leading me to 
give instances in some of these notes, I insist chiefly upon 
this, " that the Mosaic Religion was built upon a former ; 
namely, .the Patriarchal : whereas the various Reli- 
" gions of the Pagan World were all unrelated to, and 
independent of one another." As this was a circum 
stance necessary to be well attended to, by all who would 
fully comprehend the nature of the Mosaic Policy, I took 
the advantage, which the celebrated Author of the 
Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion had 
afforded rne, to support this characteristic note, against his 
idle attempt to prove, that the Pagans, likewise, were ac 
customed to build one pretended Revelation on another. 

3. I proceed, in the next place, to shew, that those 
prejudices which made the introduction of a THEOCRACY 
so easy, occasioned as easy a defection from it. In which, 
I had occasion to explain the nature of the worship of 
tutelary Gods ; and of that Idolatry wherewith the 
Israelites were so obstinately besotted. 

Both of which Discourses serve these further purposes : 
the former, to support and explain what hath been said 
in the second Book concerning the Pagan intercommunity 
of worship : and the latter (besides a peculiar use to be 
made of it in the third* Volume) to obviate a popular 
* See p. 144 of this Volume. 

VOL. VI. K objection 


objection of Unbelievers : who, from this circumstance, 
of the perpetual defection of the Israelites into idolatry, 
would infer, that God s Dispensation to them could never 
have been so convictive as their History represents it ; 
the Objectors having taken it for granted, on the allow 
ance of Believers, that this Idolatry consisted in re 
nouncing the Law of Moses, and renouncing it as dis 
satisfied with its truth. Both which suppositions are 
here shewn to be false. This affords an occasion to 
confute the false reasoning of Lord Bolingbroke ; who, 
from this frequent lapse into Idolatrv, infers such a 
defect and political inability in the Law, as shews its 
pretence to a divine original to be an imposture. 

4. The nature of the THEOCRACY, and the circum 
stances attending its erection, being thus explained, we 
come next to inquire concerning its duration. Here we 
shew, that, in strict truth and propriety, it subsisted 
throughout the whole period ot the Jewish economy, 
even to the corning of Christ : In which discourse, the 
contrary opinions, of an earlier abolition, are all con 
sidered and confuted, and the above truth supported and 
established. In the course of this reasoning, it is shewn, 
that the famous Prophecy of Jacob, of the Sceptres not 
departing from Judith till the coming of Shiloh, is a 
promise or declaration of the existenceof the THEOCRACY 
till the coming of Christ. And as the truth of this inter 
pretation is of the highest importance to Revelation, all 
the different senses given to this Prophecy are examined, 
and shewn to be erroneous. And the last of them being 
one borrowed by Dr. Sherlock, Bishop of London, and 
received into his Book of the Use and Intent of Pro 
phecy, is particularly discussed. 

The use to be hereafter made of the duration of the 
Theocracy to the coming of Christ, is to inforce, by this 
circumstance, amongst many others, the cox VEX ION 
between the two Religions : a truth, though too much 



neglected, yet incumbent on every rational Defender of 
Revelation to support. 

The argument then proceeds to a consideration of the 
peculiar consequences attending the administration of a 
Theocracy, which brings us yet nearer to our point* 
Here it is shewn, that one necessary consequence was an 
this deduction from the nature of things, we find, that 
holy Scripture does, in fact, exhibit this very represen 
tation of God s Government of Judea ; and that there 
are many favourable circumstances in the character of 
the Hebrew People, to induce us to believe the repre 
sentation to be true. Here, many cloudy cavils of the 
three Doctors, SYKES, STEBBING, and RUTHERFORD, 
are occasionally removed and dispersed. But the at 
tentive Reader will observe, that my Argument does not 
require me to prove more in this place, than that holy 
Scripture REPRESENTS an extraordinary Providence to 
have been administered. The proof of its REAL Ad 
ministration is established by the MEDIUM of my Thesis, 
the omission of the Doctrine of a future state of Rewards 
and Punishments. Which answers all objections as to 
our inadequate conceptions of such an administration ; 
as well as to certain passages of Scripture that seem to 
clash with its general representation of it. Yet both 
these sort of objections are, however, considered ev 

As important as the fact is, to our present purpose of 
an extraordinary Providence thus represented, it has still 
a further use, when employed amongst those distinguish 
ing marks of the truth of Moses s divine Mission in 
general : for it shews us, the unnecessary trouble and 
hazard to which he exposed himself, had that Mission 
been feigned. Had he, like the rest of the ancient Law 
givers, only pretended to inspiration, he had then no 
occasion to propagate the belief of an extraordinary 
Providence; a Dispensation so easy to be confuted. 

K 3 But 


But by deviating from their practice, and announcing to 
his People, that their tutelary God was become their 
KING, he laid himself under a necessity of teaching an 
extraordinary Providence ; a dead weight upon an Im 
posture, which nothing but downright folly could have 
brought him to undergo. 

To proceed. After having laid this strong and neces 
sary Foundation, we come at length DIRECTLY to the 
point in question. If the Jewish Government were a 
THEOCRACY, administered, as it must be, by an extraor 
dinary Providence, the next consequence is, that TEM 

were the SANCTION of their Law and Religion. Thus 
far, therefore, have our considerations on the nature alone 
of the Jewish Government conducted us : and it is 
almost to our journey s end : for it fairly brings us up to 
the proof of our two MINOR Propositions. So necessary, 
as the Reader now sees, is the long discourse of the 
nature of the Jewish Government. 

But, to prevent all cavil, the Argument goes on, and 
proves in the next place, that the Doctrine of a future 
state of Rewards and Punishments, which could not, from, 
the nature of things, be the SANCTION of the Jewish 
economy, was not in fact contained in it at all : nay 
further, that it was PURPOSELY OMITTED by the great 
Lawgiver. This is proved from several passages in the 
Book of Genesis and the Law. 

And here, more fully to evince, that Moses, who, it is 
seen, studiously omitted the mention of it, was well 
apprised of its importance, I shew, that the PUNISH 
was brought into this Institution purposely to afford some 
advantages to Government, which the Doctrine of a 
future state, as it is found in all other Societies, amply 
supplies. This, at the same time that it gives further 
strength to the position of no future state in the Mosaic 
Dispensation, gives the Author a fair occasion of vindi 


eating the justice and equity of the Law of punishing 
Children for the sins of their Parents] and of proving 
the perfect agreement between MOSES and the Prophets 
EZEKTEL and JEREMIAH, concerning it; which hath 
been, in all ages, the stumbling-block of Infidelity. 

But we now advance a step further, and shew, that as 
Moses did not teach, yea forbore to teach the doctrine of a 
future state of Rewards and Punishments, so neither had 
the ancient Jews, that is to say, the Body of the People, 
any knowledge of it. The proof is striking, and scarce to 
be resisted by any Party or Profession but that of the 
SYSTEM-MAKER. The Bible contains a very circumstan 
tial account of this People, from the time of Moses to the 
great Captivity; not only the history of public occurrences, 
but the lives of private persons of both sexes, and of all ages, 
conditions, characters, and complexions ; in the adven 
tures of virgins, matrons, kings, soldiers, scholars, parents, 
merchants, husbandmen. They are given too in every 
circumstance of life; captive, victorious, in sickness and 
in health; in full security, and amidst impending dangers, 
plunged in civil business, or retired and sequestered in 
the service of Religion. Together with their story we 
have their compositions likewise: in one place we hear 
their triumphal ; in another, their penitential strains. 
Here we have their exultations for blessings received; 
there, their deprecations of evil apprehended : Here they 
urge their moral precepts to their contemporaries ; and 
there again, they treasure up their Prophecies and Pre 
dictions for the use of Posterity ; and on each, denounce 
the threatenings and promises of Heaven. Yet in none 
of these different circumstances of life, in none of these 
various casts of composition, do we ever find them acting 
on the motives, or influenced by the prospect, of a FUTURE 
STATE : or indeed, expressing the least hopes or fears, or 
even common curiosity, concerning it : But every thing 
they do or say respects the present life only; the good 

K 3 and 


and ill of which are the sole objects of their pursuits and 

The strength of this argument is still further supported 
by a view of the general history of Mankind ; and par 
ticularly of those nations most resembling the Jewish in 
their genius and circumstances: in which we find the 
Doctrine of a future state of Rewards and Punishments, 
\vas always pushing on its influence. It was their con 
stant viaticum through life; it stimulated them to war, 
and spirited their songs of triumph; it made them insen 
sible of pain, immovable in danger, and superior to the 
approach of death. 

This is not all : We observe, that even in the Jewish 
Annals, when this Doctrine was become national, it made 
as considerable a figure in their History, as in that of 
any other nation. 

It is still further urged, that this conclusion does not 
rest merely on the negative silence of the Bible-history ; 
it is supported on the positive declarations contained in 
it; by which the sacred Writers plainly discover that 
there was no popular expectation of a future state or 

From the Old Testament \ve come to the New. By 
the Writers of which it appears, that the Doctrine of a 
future state of Rewards and Punishments DID NOT 
HAKE PART of the Mosaic Dispensation. 

Their evidence is divided into two parts; the first, 
proving that TEMPORAL rewards and punishments were 
the sanction of the Jewish Dispensation; The second 
that it had no other. And thus, with the most direct 
and unexceptionable proof of the two MINOR proposi 
tions, the fifth Book concludes. 

VI. But to remove, as far as possible, all the sup 
ports of prejudice against this important Truth, the sixth 
and last Book of this Volume is employed in examining 
all those texts of the Old and New Testament, which 



had been commonly urged to prove, that the Doctrine 
of a future state of rewards and punishments DID MAKE 
PART of the Mosaic Dispensation. 

And amongst those of the Old Testament, the famous 
passage of the xixth chapter of Job, concerning & Resur 
rection (as it has been commonly understood) holding a 
principal place, it was judged expedient, for the reasons 
there given, to examine that matter to the bottom. This 
necessarily brought on an enquiry into the NATURE and 
GENIUS of that Book; WHEX WRITTEN, and to WHAT 
PURPOSE. By the aid of which enquiry, a fair account 
is given of the sense of that famous Text, consistent with 
our general Proposition. 

But the whole Discourse on the Book of Job hath this 
further use : It provides a strong support and illustration 
of what will be hereafter delivered concerning the GRA 
DUAL DECAY of the extraordinary Providence from 
the time of Saul, to the return from the great Captivity. 

Yet this is riot all. The Discourse hath yet a further 
use, with regard to Revelation in general. For the ex 
plaining, How the principles of the Gospel-Doctrine 
were opened by degrees, fully obviates the calumnies of 
those two leaders in Infidelity, TIXDAL and COLLINS; 
who pretend, that the Heads and Governors of the Jews 
refined their old Doctrines concerning the Deity, and 
invented new ones : just as the Priests improved in know 
ledge, or the People advanced in curiosity ; or as Both 
were better taught by the instructions they received from 
their Masters in the country whither they were kd away 

The discourse of Job being of this importance, we 
% were led to support all the parts of it, from the attacks of 
various Writers, who had attempted to confute it. 

The rest of tiie Old Testament-texts are gone through 
with greater dispatch, tyeing divided into two parts. 
i. Such as are supposed to teach the separate existence, 
or, as it is called, the immortality of the Soul. And, 

K 4 2. Such 


2. Such as are supposed to teach a future state of Re 
wards and Pumsliments, together with a Resurrection 
of the body. In the course of which examination, much 
light, it is hoped, has been thrown both on the particular 
texts and on the general question. 

From the texts of the Old Testament, the Argument 
proceeds to examine those of the New: Amongst which, 
the famous eleventh Chapter of the Epistle it; (he He 
brews is not forgotten ; the sense of which is cleared up, 
to oppose to the inveterate mistakes of Systematical 
Divines: And here, occasion is taken to explain the 
nature of St. Paul s reasoning against the errors of the 

c/ / 

Jewish converts^ a matter of highest moment for a right 
understanding of this Apostle s Letters to the several 
Churches; and for the further illustration of the general 

As in all this, nothing is taught or insinuated which 

O o 

opposes the doctrine of our excellent Church, common 
decency required that this conformity should be fully 
shewn and largely insisted on. 

Having therefore, all along, gone upon this Principle, 
" That though a future State of rewards and punish- 
" ments made no part of the MOSAIC Dispensation, yet 
" that the LAW had a SPIRITUAL meaning; though not 
" seen or understood till the fulness of time was come. 
" Henoe the Ritual Law received the nature, and afforded 
" the efficacy of PROPHECY : In the interim (as is shewn) 
" the mystery of the Gospel was occasionally revealed, 
" by God, to his chosen servants, the Fathers and 
" Leaders of the Jewish Nation ; and the dctwnbigs of it 
" gradually opened by the Prophets, to the People." 
Having, I say, gone, all the way, upon this principle, I 
shew, from the SEVENTH ARTICLE of Religion, that it 
is the very Doctrine of our excellent Church. 

And in exolaining that part of the ARTICLE which 
says, That they are not to be he Ard which feign that the 
old Fathers did look only for transitory Promises, I sup 


port this doctrine by the case of ABRAHAM, who, our 
blessed Master tells us, rejoiced to see his day, and saw it 
and was glad. 

Here, I attempt to prove, in illustration of this text, 
that the Command to Abraham to offer Isaac was merely 
an information given, at Abraham s earnest request, in a 
representative action, instead of words, of the REDEMP 
TION OF MANKIND by the great Sacrifice of Christ on 
the Cross. Which interpretation, if it be the true one, is, 
I think, the noblest proof that ever was given of the 
HARMONY between the Old and New Testament 

From this long Dissertation, besides the immediate 
purpose of vindicating the Doctrine of our national 
Church, in its seventh Article, we gain these two ad 
vantages ; i . The first of which is, supporting a real and 
essential connexion between the Mosaic and the Christian 
Religions. 2. The other is, disposing the Deists to 
think more favourably of Revelation, when they see, in 
this interpretation of the COMMAND, all their objections 
to this part of Abraham s story overthrown. 

The matter being of this high importance, it w r as proper 
to fix my interpretation on such principles as would leave 
no room for reasonable doubt or objection : And this 
was to be done by explaining the nature of those various 
modes of information in use amongst the Ancients ; for 
which explanation, a proper ground had been laid in the 
discourse on the Hieroglyphics in the fourth Book. To 
all this (for the reason here given) is subjoined a con 
tinued refutation of all that Dr. Stebbing has been able 
to urge against this idea of the Command. 

Nor is this all. This Dissertation, which affords so 
many new openings into the truths of Revelation in general, 
and so many additional supports to the argument of the 
Divine Legation in particular, hath another very impor 
tant use. It is a necessary introduction to the long Dis 
course which follows, concerning PROPHECY. 



In this (which is the last of the present Volume) I 
have attempted to clear up and vindicate the logical 
truth and propriety of Types in action, and secondary 
semes in speech : For on the truth and propriety of these 
depends the divine original of the ancient JEWISH PRO 
PHECIES concerning Christ A matter much needing a 
support : For though the greater part of these Prophe 
cies confessedly relate to Jesus only in a secondary sense, 
yet had some men of name, and in the interests of Re 
ligion, through ignorance of the true origin and nature 
of such senses, rashly concurred with modern Judaism and 
Infidelity, to give them all up as illogical and enthu 
siastic, to the imminent hazard of the very foundation of 

In the progress of this inquiry, I had occasion to 
examine, and was enabled, on the principles here laid 
down, to confute Mr. Collins s famous Work of the 
Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion, one of 
the most able and plausible books ever written amongst 
us, against our holy Faith; he having borrowed the 
Argument, and stolen all the reasoning upon it, from the 
most sagacious of the modern Rabbins ; who pretend 
that none of the Prophecies can relate to Jesus in any 
other sense than a secondary ; and that a secondary seme 
is illogical and fanatical. Had I done no more, in this 
long work, than explain and clear up, as I have done, this 
much embarrassed and most important question of the 
Jewish Prophecies which relate to Christ, and to the Chris 
tian Dispensation, I should have thought my time and 
labour \vell employed; so necessary to the very being of 
our holy Faith, is the setting this matter on its true foun 
dation. Thus much may be said in favour of this large 
dissertation considered in itself alone : But, as part of the 
Argument of the Divine Legation of Moses, it has these 
more immediate uses : 

i. To shew, that those who contend, that the Christian 
Doctrine of a future State was revealed to the early Jews, 



destroy all use and reason of a secondary sense of Pro 
phecies ; for how shall it be certainly known, from the 
Prophecies themselves, that they contain double senses, 
but from this acknowledged truth, that the old Law was 
preparatory to, and the rudiments of, the New? Or how 
shall this relation between these two Laws be certainly 
known, but from the evidence of this contested truth, 
that the Doctrine of a future state of Rewards and 
Punishments is not to be found in the Mosaic Dispensa 
tion ? So close a dependence have all these capital 
Principles on one another. 

2. The other more immediate reason for this Disser 
tation on Types and secondary Senses was this : As I had 
shewn, that a future State of rewards and punishments 
Avas not revealed under any part of the Jewish economy, 
otherwise than by those modes of information; it was 
necessary, in order to shew the real connexion between 
Judaism and Christianity (the truth of the latter Religion 
depending on that real connexion) to prove those modes 
to be logical and rational. For, as on the one hand, had 
the doctrine of life and immortality been revealed under 
the Mosaic economy, Judaism had been more than 
a rudiment of, and preparation to, Christianity ; so on the 
other, had no covert intimations, at all, been given of the 
doctrine, it had been less : that is, the dependency and 
connexion between the two Religions had not been suiH- 
ciently marked out and ascertained. With this Disser 
tation therefore, so important in its use and application, 
the sixth and last Book of the second * Volume concludes. 

Thus the READER, at length, may see how regularly, 
and intently, these two * Volumes have been carried on : 
For, though the AUTHOR (whose passion is not so much 
a fondness for his own conceived argument, as for the 
honour and support of Religion itself) hath neglected no 
fair occasion of inforcing every collateral circumstance, 
which might serve to illustrate the truth of Revelation 
* See p. 103. of this Vol. 



in general-, yet he never loses sight of his end, but 
as the precept for conducting the most regular works 

Semper ad evcntum festinat. 

This Volume too, like the first, I thought fit to publish 
alone, not merely for the same reason, that it was a com 
plete and entire work of itself, which explained the nature 
and genius of the Jewish Constitution ; but for this ad 
ditional one, that it fairly ended and completed the Ar 

For the first Volume having proved the MAJOR, and 
the second Volume, the MINOR Propositions of the 
TWO SYLLOGISMS; my logic teaches me to think, that 
the CONCLUSION follows of course, viz. THAT THE 

Or put it in another light, Having proved my three 
principal Propositions, 

I. " That the inculcating the Doctrine of a future 
" State of rewards and punishments, is necessary to 
" the well-being of civil Society ; 

II. " That all mankind, especially the most wise and 
" learned nations of Antiquity, have concurred in be- 
" lieving, and teaching, that this Doctrine was of such use 
" to civil Society ; 

III. " That the Doctrine of a future State of rewards 
" and punishments is not to be found in, nor did make 
" part of, the Mosaic Dispensation;" 

The conclusion is, that therefore THE LAW OF MOSES 


A CONCLUSION which necessarily follows the premisses 
contained in these three propositions. Notwithstanding 
alt this, the evidence of their truth proving so various, 
extending so wide, and having been drawn out to so great 
a length ; What between inattention and prejudice, the 
Argument, here brought to its final issue, hath been gene 
rally understood to be left imperfect ; and the Conclusion 



of it reserved for another Volume. Yet a very moderate 
share of reflection might have led the candid Reader to 
understand, that I had here effectually performed what 
I had promised, namely, TO DEMONSTRATE THE 
DIVINE LEGATION OF MOSES. For if it be indeed 
proved, That the Doctrine of a future state is necessary 
to the well-being of civil Society, under the ordinary 
government of Providence That all mankind have ever 
so conceived of the matter That the Mosaic Institution 
was without this support, arid that yet it did not want 
it, What follows but that the Jewish affairs were ad 
ministered by an extraordinary Providence, distributing 
reward and punishment with an equal hand; and con 
sequently that the MISSION OF MOSES WAS DIVINE? 

However, tiie complaint against the AUTHOR, for not 
having performed his Convention with the Public, became 
pretty general. To which a great deal might be said, 
and perhaps to little purpose. The following Tale will 
put it in the fairest light. In a solemn Treaty lately 
concluded between the Governor of one of our American 
Provinces and the neighbouring Savages, it had, it seems, 
been stipulated, that the Settlement should supply those 
Warrior-Tribes with a certain number of good and ser 
viceable Muskets. Which engagement was so ill per 
formed, that at their next general meeting, the Chieft 
of the Barbarians complained, that, though indeed the 
Colony had sent them the number of Muskets agreed upon, 
vet, on examination, they were all found to be without 
Locks. This mischance (occasioned by the Muskets 
and the Locks being put into two different cargoes) the 
Governor promised should be redressed. It was re- 
dressed accordingly ; and the Locks sought out, and sent, 
He now flattered himself that all cause of umbrage was 
effectually removed ; when, at their next meeting, he 
was entertained with a fresh complaint, that the Colony 
had fraudulently sent them Locks without Musktfs. 
The truth "was, this brave People, of unirnpeached morals, 



were only defective in their military Logic ; they had not 
the dexterity, till they Mere first shewn the way, to put 
the major of the Musket and the miner of the Musket- 
lock together ; and from thence to draw the concluding 

But then it will be said, " If, as is here pretended, 
the PREMISSES have been indeed proved, in these two 
Volumes, with all the detail which their importance 
required, and with all the evidence which a moral subject 
can supply ; and the CONCLUSION, therefore, established 
with all the conviction which the Laws of logic are able 
to inforce ; Why was another Volume promised ? For 
no other end, as would seem, than to mislead a well- 
meaning Reader, in the vain pursuit of an Argument 
already ended." 

It was promised for a better purpose To remove all 
conceivable objections against the CONCLUSION, and to 
throw in every collateral light upon the PREMISSES. For 
it is one thing to satisfy Truth ; and another, to silence 
her pretended friends. He who defends Revelation has 
many prejudices to encounter ; but he who defends it 
by Reason only, has many more. 


The THIRD and last Volume, therefore, is destined to 
SUPPORT what hath been already proved : not, as has 
been absurdly suggested, to continue and conclude an 
unfinished Argument, 

It consists of three Books, like each of the preceding 

i. The seventh Book therefore is employed in sup 
porting the MAJOR and the MINOR Propositions of the 
first Syllogism : in a continued History of the RELIGIOUS 
OPINIONS of the Jews, from the time of the earlier 
Prophets, who first gave some dark intimations of a dif 
ferent Dispensation, to the time of the Maccabees, when 
the Doctrine of a future state of rewards and punish 
ments was become national. 

3 l. The 


2. The eighth Book is employed in supporting the 
MAJOR and MINOR Propositions of the second Syllo 
gism, in which is considered the PERSONAL CHARACTER 
of Moses and the GENIUS OF THE LAW, as far as it 
concerns or has a relation to the character of the Law 
giver. Under this latter head, is contained a full and 
satisfactory Answer to those who may object, " That a 
revealed Religion with a future state of rewards and 
punishments is unworthy the Divine Author to whom it 
is ascribed." 

3. The ninth and last Book explains at large the nature 
and genius of the CHRISTIAN DISPENSATION: For 
having, towards the end of the eighth Book, examined 
the PRETENDED REASONS (offered both by Believers 
and Unbelievers to evade my conclusion) for omitting 
the Doctrine of a future State of rewards and punishments 
in the Mosaic Dispensation, I was naturally and ne 
cessarily led to inquire into the TRUE. For now, it 
might be finally objected, " That though, under an 
extraordinary Providence, there might be no occasion for 
the doctrine of a future State, in support of Religion, or 
for the ends of Government; yet as that Doctrine is a 
truth, and consequently, under every regimen of Provi 
dence, useful, it seems hard to conceive, that the Religious 
Leader of the Jews, because as a Lawgiver he could do 
without it, that therefore, as a Divine, he would omit 
it." The objection is of weight in itself, and receives 
additional moment from what hath been observed in the 
fifth Book, concerning the Jtedsdn of the Law of punishing 
Children for the crimes of their Parents. I held it there 
fore insufficient barely to reply, " Moses omitted it, that 
" his Law might thereby stand, throughout all ages, an 
" invincible Monument of the truth of his pretences :" 
but proceeded to explain the GREAT AND PRINCIPAL 
reason of the omission. And now, ventwn ad VERUM est. 

The whole concludes with one general but distinct 
view of the ^entire course of God s universal economy 



from Adam to Christ. In which it is shewn, that if 
Moses were, in truth, sent from God, he could not teach 
a future State ; that Doctrine being out of his Commis 
sion, and reserved for him who was at the head of ano 
ther Dispensation, by which life and immortality wax to 
be brought to light. 

This Discourse, besides the immediate purpose of 
supporting and illustrating the ARGUMENT here com 
pleted, serves another end, which I had in view, as to 
the general disposition of the whole work : which was to 
explain and discriminate the distinct and various natures 
of the PAGAN, the JEWISH and the CHRISTIAN Reli 
gions : the Pagan having been considered in the first 
Volume, and the Jewish in the second ; the Christian is 
reserved for the third * and last. Let me conclude there 
fore, in an address to my Reverend Brethren, with the 
words of an Ancient Apologist f : Quid nobis invidemus, 
si veritas Divinitatis, nostri temporis ^Etate maturuit? 
Fruamur bono nostro, et recti sententiam temperemus : 
cohibeatur SUPERSTITIO, IMPIETAS expietur, VERA 
RELIGIO reservetur. 

* As the first and second volumes of the Edition alluded to, con 
tained Books I. to VI. the THIRD volume was intended to comprise 
the VII th VIII th IX th ; but the VII th & VIII th Books were never 
composed (See Life of the Author, vol. i. pp. 80 to 89, of this 
Edition). The IX th Book forms the concluding part of this 
volume. Ed. 

t Minucius Felix. 







AN excellent Writer having freely and candidly 
examined the late Bishop of London s collection of 
Sermons, and in page 165 of his Examination, asked this 
question, Where was Idolatry ever punished by the Ma 
gistrate, but under the Jewish Economy ? The Oxford 
Professor, in the second Edition of his Prelections, 
concerning the sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, thinks 
fit to give the following answer " It was punished under 
" the (Economy of the Patriarchs, in the families and 
" under the DOMINION of Abraham, Melchisedec and 
^ JOB. Idolatry spreading wider and wider, Abraham 
" was called by God from Chaldea, for this end, to bo 
" the father of a People, which, divided from all others^ 
" might continue to worship the true God ; to be set up 
ft for an exemplar of true Religion, and to be ready to 
." give testimony against the worship of vain Deities. 
" Was not Abrahain, therefore (exercising the SOVE- 
" REIGNTY in his own family) to punish Idolatry ? 
" Were not Melchisedec and Job, and all the SOVE- 
" REIGNS of Tribes of that time, who still retained the 
" knowledge and worship of the true God, amidst a 
ft general defection of all the surrounding People, to take 
" care that their own did not backslide ? To curb offend- 
<" ers, and to inflict punishment on the obstinate, the 
* REBELLIOUS, and on all those who spread abroad 
" the contagion of this vice." Ad quaestionein respon-r 
VOL. VI. L detur : 


detur : Sub oeconomia Patriarcharum ; in familiis, et sub 
DOMJNATU Abraham!, Melchizedechi, Jobi, caetero- 
rumque. Ingruente Idolol atria divinitus evocabatur ex 
Chaldaea Abrahamus : eum in fincin, ut fieret pater 
Gentis, quce ab aliis omnibus divisa, verum Deum 
coleret, publicum proponeret exemplurn puras religionis, 
contraque cultum vanorum numinum testimoniuin per- 
hiberet. Nonne erat igitur Abrahami in sua familia 
PRINCIPATUM exercentis proprium officiuin et munus in 
Idololatriam anirnadvertere ? Nonne Melchizedechi, Jobi, 
omniumquc tune temporis in suisTribubus PuiNCiPim, 
qui veri Dei cognitioncin et cultum in communi fere 
gentium circumvicinurum defectione adhuc retinebant, 
cavere, ne sui deficercnt ; coercere delinquentes ; obsti 
nates et KEBETLKS, et scclcrifi contagionem propagantes, 
supplicio allicere? Supplement um ad primam Prcdec- 
tionum Editionan : Addil. Editionis secunda*,, p. 312. 

This is so pleasant an answer, and so little needing the 
masterly hand of the Examiner, to correct, that a few 
strictures, in a cursory Note, will be more than sufficient 
to do the business. 

1 . The Examiner, to prove, I suppose, that the book 
of Job was a dramatic work, written long after the time 
of the Patriarch, asks, Where was Idolatry ever punished 
by the MAGISTRATE, but under the Jesc&k Economy? 
The Professor answers, // was punished under the 
JOBEAN ECONOMV. And he advances nothing without 
proof. Does not Job himself say, that Idolatry was an 
iniquity to be punished by the Judge? The Examiner 
replies, that the Job who says this, is an airy Phantom, 
raised for other purposes than to lay down the Law for 
the Patriarchal times. The Professor maintains that 
they are all Asses, with ears as long as Father Harduin^ 
Avho cannot see that this is the true and genuine old 
Job. In good time. Sub Judice Us est : And while it 
is so, I am afraid the learned Professor BEGS THE QUES- 
TJ-OX ; when, to prove that Idolatry was punished by 


the Magistrate, out of the land of Judea, he affirms that 
KING JOB punished it. If he say, he does not rest his 
assertion on this passage of the Book of Job alone, but 
on the sacred Records, from whence he concludes that 
those CIVIL MAGISTRATES, Abraham and Melchisedec, 
punished Idolatry ; I shall own he acts fairly, in putting 
them all upon the same footing ; and on what ground that 
stands, we shall now see. 

2. The Examiner says, Where was Idolatry ever 
punished by the Magistrate, but under the Jewish 
Economy? A question equivalent to this, " Where 
was Idolatry punished by the civil Magistrate on the 
established Laws of the State, but in Judea ? To which, 
the Professor replies, " It was punished by all the 
Patriarchal Monarchs, by king Job, king Abraham, and 
Jung Melchisedec." 

Of a noble race was Shcnkin. 

But here, not one, save the last, had so much as a nominal 
title to civil Magistracy : And this last drops, as it were* 
from the clouds, without lineage or parentage ; so that, 
though ofdivhie, yet certainly not a Monarch of the true 
stamp, by hereditary right. The Critic therefore fails 
in his first point, which is, finding out civil Magistrates to 
do his hierarchical drudgery. 

3. But let us admit our Professors right of investiture, 
to confer this high office, and then see how he proves, 
that these his Lieges punished the crime of Idolatry by 
civil punishment. ABRAHAM, and the Patriarchs his 
descendants, come first under consideration. What! 
(says he) was not Abraham, exercising the SOVEREIGNTY 
in his own family, to punish Idolatry? Hoboes is, I bet 
lieve, the only one (save our Professor) who holds that 
" Abraham had a right to prescribe to his family what 
" Religion they should be of, to tell them what was the 
" word of God, and to punish those who countenance^ 
" any Doctrine which he had forbidden." Leviath, 
jchap. 40. -But God speaking of Abraham, says, I know 



that he will command his children and his houshold after 
him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, $c. 
Gen. xviii. 19. And Hobbes and our Professor, I sup- 
pose, regard this declaration as a clear proof of the divine 
doctrine of RESTRAINT in matters of Religion ; especially 
when interpreted by their darling text oi force them to 
enter in. On the contrary, those who have been bred up 
in the Principles of Toleration, hold it to be a mere 
testimony (a glorious one indeed) of Abraham s pious 
and parental care to INSTRUCT his family in the Law of 
God. And it is well it can go for no more, or I should feat 
the learned Professor would have brought in Isaac as a 
backslider to Idolatry ; and his Father s laying him on the 
sacrificial Pile, as a kind of Auto de fe. Now, except 
in these two places of Abraham s History, of such won 
derful force to support intolerant principles, the Patriarch 
appears in all others so averse to this inquisitorial spirit, 
that where God comes down to destroy Sodom, the 
Father of the Faithful intercedes, with the utmost im 
portunity, for that idolatrous as well as incestuous City. 
The truth is this : The usurped right of punishing for 
opinions was first assumed and long ingrossed by Idolaters, 
And, if tradition may be believed, Abraham himself nar 
rowly escaped the Fire for preaching against its Divinity. 
But this is not all. From his own conduct, and from the 
conduct of his posterity, he seems to have made one part 
of that fidelity /;/ keeping the way of the Lord (for which 
he is so nobly distinguished by God himself) to consist 
hi inculcating the divine doctrine of Toleration. When 
JACOB and his family, without leave-taking, had departed 
from Laban, Rachel stole away her father s Gads. The 
old man followed and overtook them ; and complaining 
of the theft, Jacob frankly answered, With whomsoever 
thou jindest thy Cods, let him not live. Now, I woulcj 
ask, was this condemnation on the offender denounced 
for Idolatry, or for the Theft? The words of thq 
Patriarch, which immediately follow, determine Ibis 
2 Before 


Before our brethren discern thou what is thine, with me, 
and take it to thee. Well, Rachel, by a female stratagem, 
contrived to keep her father s Gods ; for no better pur 
pose, we may be sure, than that for which the good man 
employed so much pains to recover them. The theft, 
indeed, had it been discovered, would have been punished 
by the Judge : But as for the Idolatry, which, from its na 
ture, could not be long hid, the silence of Scripture shews 
it to have been cor am non Jitdice. And so far was Rachel 
from being doomed to the fire, that we do not find, even 
her Gods underwent this punishment. 

After the affair of the Shechemites, Jacob, by God s 
command, goes to Bethel : and there, in pious emulation of 
his grandfather s care to keep the way of the Lord, the text 
tells us, he commanded his Jwushold and all that were with 
Jam, to put away the strange Gods from amongst them. 
They obeyed, all was well ; and not a word of punishing 
by the Judge. Indeed, these Patriarchal Judges were 
much better employed, and more suitably to their office, 
in punishing civil crimes and immoralities, as appears 
from the adventure of Judah and his daughter-in-law., 

MELCHISEDEC S story is a short one; he is just 
brought into the scene to bless Abraham in his return 
from conquest. This promises but ill. Had this King 
and Priest of Salem been brought in cursing, it had 
had a better appearance : for, I think, punishment for 
opinions, which generally ends in a Fagot, always begins 
with a curse. But we may be misled perhaps by a wrong 
translation. The Hebrew word to bless, signifies likewise 
to curse, and, under the management of an intolerant 
Priest, good things easily run into their contraries. What 
follows, is his taking Tythes from Abraham. Nor will 
this serve our purpose, unless we interpret these Tythes 
into Fines for nonconformity ; and then, by the blessing, 
we can easily understand absolution. We have seen much 
Atrangpr things done with the Hebrew Verity. If this be 

L 3 not 


not allowed, I do not see how we can elicite fire and 
fagot from this adventure; for I think there is no insepa 
rable connexion between Tythes and Persecution, feut in 
the ideas of a Quaker. And so much for king Mel- 

But the learned Professor, who has been hardily 
brought up in the keen Atmosphere of WHOLESOME 
SEVERITIES, and early taught to distinguish between de 
facto and de jure, thought it needless to enquire into 
Facts, when he was secure of the Right. And, there 
fore, only slightly and superciliously asks, " What ! was 
not Abraham, by his very princely office, to punish 
1 Idolatry ? Were not Melchisedec and Job, and all the 
" heads of Tribes, to do the same?" Why, no: and it is 
well for Religion that they were not. It is for its honour 
that such a set of persecuting Patriarchs is no where to 
be found, but in a poetical Prelection. 

4. For in the last place, let it be observed, that as these 
Patriarchs did not de facto (which appears from their 
history), so they could not dejure (which appears from the 
laws of Nature and Nations) punish Idolatry by the 
Judge. Because, as hath been shewn, Idolatry is not 
amenable to civil Justice, but where it becomes Crimen 
l&sce Majestatis. It could not become the crime of lese- 
majesty under the Patriarchs, unless they had been GODS 
as well as KINGS* Indeed, they were as much one as 
the other. However, it is not pretended that their 
government, though Regal, was Theocratical likewise. 
The Patriarchs, therefore, could not punish Idolatry by 
the Judge. 

From the Examiner, the Professor (without the least 
provocation given him) proceeds to the Author of The 
Divine Legation ; who, he will shew, is as ignorant, ab 
surd, and mad-brained, as Father Harduin himself. 

The Author of The Divine Legation had said, that the 
Writer of the book of Job observed decorum, in imitat 
ing the manners of the early scene which he had pro 


posed to adorn. To this, the Professor objects, " I can 
41 never bring myself to allow to a SEMI-BARBAROUS 
" POET, writing after the Babylonian Captivity, such a 
" piece of subtilty and refinement." A mighty piece of 
refinement truly, for a Writer, who lays his scene in an 
early age, to paint, the best he could, the manners of that 
age. " Besides (says the Professor} which is the prin- 
" cipal point, the style savours wonderfully of Antiquity, 
" and its peculiar character is a certain primitive and 
" noble simplicity. So that they who degrade this Book 
" to the times posterior to the Babylonian Captivity, 
" seem to judge almost as insanely of Hebrew literature 
" as Father Harduin did of the Roman, who ascribed the 
" golden Poems of Virgil, Horace, and the rest, to the 
" iron ages of the Monks." Verum Poeta? semibarbaro 
post Captivitatem scribenti tantam subtilitatem ut conce- 
dam, impetrare a me non possum. Porro vero Stylus 
Poematis, quod vel maximum est, praecipue vetustatem 
sapit; est ejus peculiaris character ap^atV/xoj. Adeo ut 
qui id infra Captivitatem Babylonicam deprimunt, nou 
multo sanius in Hebraicis judicare videantur, quarn in 
Latinis Harduinus; qui aurea Virgilii, Horatii, csete- 
rorumque poemata ferreis Monachorum S&culis adscrip- 
sit. Idem ib. 

The learned Professor is a little unlucky in his com 
parison. The age of Job, as fixed by him, and the a^e 
of the Writer of his history, as fixed by me, run exactly 
parallel, not with the times of Virgil and Frederic 
Barbarossa, as he would insinuate, but with those of 
Ennius and Virgil. Job, the hero of the Poem, lived in 
an age when civil Society was but beginning to shew itself, 
and what is more, in a Country where it never yet was 
formed : And Ezra (whom I suppose to be the Author 
of the Poem) w r as an eminent Citizen in the most perfect 
civil goverment in the World, which he was sent home to 
restore, laden vrith the literary treasures of the East ; 
treasures that had been long accumulating under the warm 

L 4 influence 


influence of a large and powerful Empire. Frorin this 
second transplantation of the Republic, Science got foot 
ing in Judea ; and true Religion took deeper root in the 
hearts of its Inhabitants. Henceforward, we hear no 
more of their absurd Idolatries. A strict adherence to 
the LAW now as much distinguished them from others, as 
did the singularity of the LAW itself. And a studious 
cultivation of the LANGUAGE, in which that Law was 
written, as naturally followed, as it did amongst the 
.Sarazens, who cultivated the Arabic, on the same prin 
ciple. And to understand j#>w great this was in both, 
we need only consider, that each had the same aversion 
to a translation of their Law into a foreign language, It 
is true, that in course of time, when the Jewish Policy 
was abolished, and the Nation was become vagabond 
upon Earth, while the Arabs, on the contrary, had erected 
a great Empire, a manifest difference arose bet ween them, 
as to the cultivation of the two Languages. Yet for all 
this, the Professor calls Ezra, a SEMI-BARBARIAN; 
.though we agree that he wrote by the inspiration of the 
.Most High ; amidst the last blaze indeed* yet in the full 
lustre of expiring Prophecy. 

But the learned Professor has ah internal argument 
from TASTE *, full as good as the other from Chronology. 
" The book of Job savours of Antiquity, and those who 
cannot relish it, have as depraved a taste as Father 
Harduin, who could not distinguish Partridge from Horse 

The trutfi is, the Greek and Latin Languages having, 
for many Ages, been the mother-tongues of two of the 
greatest People upon earth (who had shared between 
them the Empires of Eloquence and of Arms) became daily 
more and more copious by the cultivation of Arts; and 
less and less pure by the extension of Commerce. In 
these two languages there yet remains a vast number of 

* See what hath been said on this head in the preceding Volume, 
book vu SK 



writings on all sorts of Subjects. So that modern Critics 
(in the foremost rank of whom will always stand the in 
comparable BENTLEY) had by long application to them* 
through their various and progressive refinements and de^ 
pravations from age to age, acquired a certain sagacity* 
in passing a tolerable judgment concerning the time of the 
Writer, by his style and manjaer. Now Pedantry, which 
is the ape of Criticism, would mimic the same talent of 
discernment, in the narrowest and most barren of all 
Languages ; little subject to change, both from the com 
mon genius of the East, and from the peculiar situation 
of a sequestered People. Of this Language, long since 
become a dead one, the only remains are in one small 
Volume ; the contents of which, had not Providence been 
mercifully pleased to secure, while the Tongue was yet 
liviiiij, by a translation into Greek, the HEBREW VERITY, 
transmitted to us in the manner it was found in the most 
ancient MSS. where no vowel-points are used, nor space 
left to distinguish one word from another, and where a 
great number of terms occur only once, would at this day 
be a mere arbitrary CIPHER, which every Rabbinical or 
Cabalistic juggler might make the key of his unrevealed 
Mysteries. " Idem accidit etiain Mahometanis (says 
Abraham Ekell.) ante inventa ab Ali Abnaditalebo puncta 
vocalia: Tanta eniin legentiurn erat dissentio, ut nisi 
Othomanni cocrcita fuisset authoritate, et determinata 
lectio punctis, quae Ali excogitaverat, JAM DEALCORANO 
ACT IT M ESSET." Arid if this had been the case of the 
Arabic of the Alcoran, a copious and a living language, 
what had become of the Hebrew of the liible ? a very 
narrow and a dead one. Of which an ancient Jewish 
Grammarian gives this character: " Lingua ista[ A rabica] 
elegans est, et longe lateque scriptis dilatata, et qui earn 
loquitur nulla dictione deficit : Lingua vero sancta pauca 
st pra? ilia, cum illius nihil extet nisi quod in Libris Scrip 
ture reperitur, nee suppedltct ornnes dictioms loquendl 
Yet this is the language whose peculiarities 



of style and composition, correspondent to every age and 
time, the Professor seems to think, may be as easily dis 
tinguished as those of the Greek or Latin Classics. So 
much for the Author of The Divine Legation : and in 
deed too much, had not Mr.LocKE s defence been involved 
in his : that excellent person having declared (speaking of 
the words of Job, that Idolatry was an iniquity to be 
punished by the Judge) "Tins PLACE ALONE, WERE 
"THERE NO OTHER, is sufficient to confirm their opi- 
" nion who conclude that book to be writ by a JEW." 

From The Divine Legation, the learned Professor 
turns again to the Examiner, who seems to sit heavy on 
his stomach. This excellent Writer desired to know of 
the learned, Where they could find a civil or religious 
Constitution out of Judea, which declared that the 
Children should suffer for the crime of their Parents. 
To which the Professor replies in these very words In 
praesens Horatiano illo versiculo contentus abito Exami- 
natorum omnium CANDID ESSIMUS For the present, let 
this MOST CANDID of all Examiners go about his busi 
ness, and be thankful for this scrap of Horace, 

" Delicta major urn immeritus lues, 

" Romane." 

This is true Poetical payment : He is called upon for his 
reckoning, and he discharges it with an old Song. But 
the Examiner is not a man to take rhime for reason. 
He asked for an old system of Laws ; and the contemp 
tuous Professor gives him an old Ballad : But a little 
more civility at parting had not been amiss ; for he, who 
did not spare the Bishop, would certainly demolish the 
Professor, should he take it into his head to examine 
the Prelections as he hath done the Sermons. 







P. 7- [A] 

DR. SxEBBtNG, in what he calls Considerations on 
the command to offer up Isaac, hath attempted to 
discredit the account here given of the Command: And 
previously assures his reader, that if any thing can hinder 
the ill effects which my interpretation must hcrce upon 
Religion^ it must be his exposing the absurdity of the 
conceit. This is confidently said. But what then ? He 

can prove it. So it is to be hoped. If not However, 

let us give him a fair hearing. He criticises this obser 
vation on the word DAY, in the following manner: 
" Really, Sir, I see no manner of consequence in this 
" reasoning. That Christ s day had reference to his 
" office, as Redeemer, I grant. The day of Christ de- 
" notes the time whert Christ should come, i. e. when 
" He should come, who was to be such by office and 
" employment. But why it must import also that when 

Christ came he should be offered up a Sacrifice, I do 

not in the least apprehend : Because I can very easily 
" understand that Abraham might have been informed 

that Christ was to come, without being informed that he 
" was to lay down his life as a Sacrifice. If Abraham 

saw that a time would come when one of his sons 
" should take away the curse, he saw Christ s day." 
{Consid. p. 139.] At first setting out (for I reckon for 
nothing this blundering, before he knew where he was, 



"into a Soclnian comment, the thing he most abhors) the 
Reader sees he grants the point I contend for That 
Christ s DAY (says he) has reference to his office as 
Redeemer, I grant. Yet the very next words employed to 
explain his meaning, contradict it ; The Day of Christ 
denotes the TIME when Christ should come. All the sense 
therefore, I can make of his concession, when joined to 
his explanation of it, amounts to this Christ s day has 
reference to his OFFICE : No, mt to his Office, but to 
his TIME. He sets off well : but he improves as he goes 
along But why it must import ALSO that when Christ 
came he should be offered /? as a Sacrifice, I do not in the 
least apprehend. Nor I, neither, I assure him. Had I 
said, that the word Day, in the text, imported the time, 
1 could as little apprehend as he does, how that which 
imports time, imports ALSO the thing done in time. Let 
him take this nonsense therefore to himself. I argued in 
a plain manner thus, When the word Day is used to 
express, in general, the period of any one s existence, 
then it denotes time ; when, to express his peculiar office 
and employment, then it denotes, not the time, but that 
circumstance of life characteristic of such office and em 
ployment; or the things done in time. DAY, in the text, 
is used to express Christ s peculiar office and employment. 
Therefore But what follows is still better. His want 
of apprehension, it seems, is founded in this, that he can 
easily understand, that Abraham might have b*ecn informed 
that Christ was to come ; without being informed that 
he was to lay down Ms life as a Sacrifice. Yes, and so 
could I likewise ; or I had never been at the pains of 
making the criticism on the word Dai) : \vhich takes its 
force from this very truth, that Abraham might have been 
informed of one without the other. And, therefore, to 
.prove he was informed of that other, I produced the text 
in question, which afforded the occasion of the criticism. 
He goes on, If Abraham saw, that a time would come 
when one of his seed should take cra ay the curse, he saw 

Christ s 


Christ s DAY. Without doubt he did. Because it is 
agreed, that Day may signify either time, or circumstance 
of action. But what is this to the purpose? The question 
is not whether the word may not, when used indefinitely, 
signify time; but whether it signifies time in this text, I 
have shewn it does not. And what has been said to 
prove it does ? Why that it may do so in another place, 
In a word, all he here says, proceeds on a total inappre- 
hension of the drift and purpose of the argument, 

P. 8. [B] Daubuz on the Rfrbelationt, p. 251 ; printed 
in the year 1720. To this reasoning, Dr. Stebbing re 
plies as follows : " You are not more successful in your 
" next point, Abraham rejoiced to see my Day, and he saw 
* //, and was glad, h<* IAH T*> *pipou r*v Ipw ^ EIAE 
" This (say you) evidently shews it [the revelation] to 
" have been made by relation in words, but by representa* 
* t ion in actions" How so? The reason follows. The verb 
* t*fa is frequently used in the New Testament in it$ 
" proper sigwficati&n, to see sensibly. In the New Tes- 
* tament, do you say? Yes, Sir, and in every Greek 
" book you ever read in your life. What you SHOULD 
" have said is, that it is so used here ; and I suppose you 
** would have said so, if you had known how to have 
w proved it." [Consid. pp. 139, 140.] 

The reason follows (says he.) Where ? In my book 
indeed, but not in his imperfect quotation from it; which 
breaks off before he conies to my reason. One who 
knew him not so well as I do, would suspect this was 
done to serve a purpose. No such matter; twas pure 
hap-hazard. He mistook the introduction of my argu^ 
ment for the argument itself. The argument itself, which 
he omits in the quotation, (and which was all I wanted, 
for the proof of my point,) was, That the verb si fa, 
whether used literally or Jigurativdy, always denotes a, 
full intuition. And this argument, I intrdouced in the 
following manner, The verb H fa infrequently used iff the 



New Testament in its proper signification, to see -sensibly* 
Unluckily, as I say, he took this for the Argument itself, 
and thus corrects me for it: " What you SHOULD have 
" said, is, that it is so used here ; and I suppose you 
" would have said so, if you had known how to have 
" proved it:" See, here, the true origin both of dogma 
tizing and divining ! His ignorance of what I did say, 
leads him to tell me what I should have said, and to 
divine what I would have said. But, what I have said, 
I think I may stand to, That the verb iWw always de 
notes a full intuition. This was all I wanted from the 
text; and on this foundation, I proceeded in the sequel 
of the discourse, to prove that Abraham saw sensibly. 
Therefore, when my Examiner takes it (as he does) for 
granted, that because, in this place, I had not proved 
that the Word implied to see sensibly, I had not proved 
it at all; he is a second time mistaken. 

" But, he owns, that, if this was all, perhaps I sh ould 
" tell him, that it was a very strange answer of the Jews, 
" thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen 
" Abraham? 1 [Consid. p. 140.] He is very right. He 
might be sure I would. In answer therefore to this 
difficulty, he goes on and says, " No -doubt, Sir, the 
" Jews answer our Saviour, as if he had said, that 
" A brah am and he were cotemporaries; in which, they 
" answered very foolishly, as they did on many other 
" occasions ; and the answer will as little agree with your 
" interpretation as it does with mine. For does your 
" interpretation suppose that Abraham saw Christ in 
" person ? No ; you say it was by representation only." 
[Consid. pp.- 1401.] 

The Jews answered our Saviour as if he had said that 
Abraham and he were cotemporaries. Do they so ? 
Why then, tis plain, the expression was as strong in the. 
Syrian language, used by Jesus, as in the Greek of his 
Historian, which was all I aimed to prove by it. But 
in this (says he) they amivered very foolishly. What 

then ^ 


then? Did I quote them for their wisdom? A little 
common sense is all I want of those with whom I have 
to deal : and rarely as my fortune hath been to meet 
with it, yet it is plain these Jews did not want it. For 
the folly of their answer arises therefrom. They heard 
Jesus use a word in their vulgar idiom, which signified to 
see corporeally ; and common sense led them to conclude 
that he used it in the vulgar meaning : in this they were 
not mistaken. But, from thence, they inferred, that he 
meant it in the sense of seeing personally ; and in this, 
they were. And now let the Reader judge whether the 
folly of their answer shews the folly of my Argument, OL; 
of rny Examiner s. Nay further, he tells us, they an 
swered as foolishly on many other occasions. They did 
so ; and I will remind him of one. Jesus says to Nico 
demus, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the 
kingdom of God*, &c. Suppose now, from these words, 
r should attempt to prove that Regeneration and divine 
Grace were realities, and not mere metaphors : for that 
Jesus, in declaring the necessity of them, used such 
strong expressions that Nicodemus understood him to 
mean the being physically born again, and entering the 
second timeinto the womb : would it be sufficient, let rne ask 
my Examiner, to reply in this manner : " No doubt. Sir, 
" Nicodemus answered our Saviour as if he had said, that 
a follower of the Gospel must enttr a second time into 
" his mother s womb and be born: in which he answered 
-" very foolishly ; and the answer will as little agree with 
^ your interpretation as it does with mine. For does 
" your interpretation suppose he should so enter ? No ; 
" but that he should be born of water and of the 
" Spirit."- Would this, I say, be deemed, even by our 
Examiner himself, a sufficient answer? When he has re 
solved me this, I shall, perhaps, have something farther 
to say to him. In the mean time I go on. And, in re 
turning him his l$st words restored to their subject, help 

* St. John iii. 3. 



him forward in the solution of what I expect from him. 
The answer (says he) will as lit fie agree with your inter 
pretation as it does with mine. For does your interpre 
tation suppose that Abraham saw Christ in person ? No ; 
you say, it was by representation only. Very well. Let 
me ask then, in the first place, Whether he supposes that 
what I said on this occasion was to prove that Abraham 
saw Christ from the reverend authority of his Jewish 
Adversaries : or to prove that the verb {<*> signified to 
see literally, from their mistaken answer? He thought 
me here, it seems, in the way of those writers, who are 
quoting Authorities, when they should be giving Reasons. 
Hence, he calls the answer the Jews here gave, a foolish 
one : as if I had undertaken for its orthodoxy. But our 
Examiner is still farther mistaken. The poirit I was 
upon, in support of which I urged the answer of the 
Jews, was not the seeing this, or that person : but the 
seeing corporeally, and not mentally. Now, if the Jews 
understood Jesus, as saying that Abraham saw corpo 
really, I concluded, that the expression, used by Jesus, 
had that import : and this was all I was concerned to 
prove. Difference, therefore, between their answer as I 
quoted it, and my interpretation, there was none. Their 
answer implied that Abraham was said to see corporeally ; 
and my interpretation supposes that the words employed 
had that import. But to make a distinction where there 
was no difference, seeing in person, and seeing by repre 
sentation, are brought in, to a question where they have 
nothing to do. 

P. 1 3. [C] Ver. i o. et seq. By the account here given, 
of GOD S Dispensations to Abraham, may be seen the 
folly of that objection, brought with such insinuations of 
importance, against the divine appoinment of Circumci 
sion, from the time of its institution. Sir John Marsham 
observes, that Abraham, when he went into Egypt, &KI& 
not circumcised, nor for twenty- years after his return. 
Abramus, quando 4Jgyptum ingressus est ? nondum 



circumcisus erat, ncque per annos amplius viginti post 
reditum, p. 73. Franeq. ed. 4to. And farther, that Cir- 
cumciiion was a most ancient rite amongst the Egyptians, 
that they had it from the beginning, and that it was a 
principle with them not to make use of the customs of 
other people. A pud .Egyptios circumcidendi ritus vetus- 
tissimus fuit, et *V *?%$! institatis. Illi nullorum 
aliorum hominum institutis uti volunt, p. 74. The noble 
Author of the CHARACTERISTICS, who never loses an 
opportunity of expressing his good-will to a Prophet or a 
Patriarch, takes up this pitiful suspicion after Marsham : 
" Before the time that Israel was constrained to go 
" down to Egypt, and me for maintenance, the Holy 
" Patriarch Abraham himself had been necessitated to 
" this compliance on the same account. Tis certain 
" that if this Holy Patriarch, who first instituted the 
" sacred rite of Circumcision within his own family or 
" tribe, had no regard to any Policy or Religion of the 
" Egyptians, yet he had formerly been a Guest and 
" Inhabitant of Egypt (where historians mention this to 
" have been a national rite) long ere he had received any 
" divine notice or Revelation concerning this atfair." 
Vol. iii. pp. 52, 53. These great men, we see, appeal to 
Scripture, fpr the support of their insinuation ; which 
Scripture had they but considered with common atten 
tion, they might have found, that it gives us a chrono 
logical account of COD S gradual Revelations to the 
Holy Patriarch ; and therefore that, according to the 
order COD was pleased to observe in his several Dispen 
sations towards him, the Rite of Circumcision could not 
have been enjoined before tljp time Abraham happened 
to go into Egypt ; nor, indeed, at any other time than 
that in which we find it to be given ; consequently that 
his journey into Egypt had not the least concern or 
Connexion with this affair : nay, had these learned Critics 
but attended to their own observation, that the Rite of 
Circumcision was instituted twenty years .after Abraham s 
VOL. VI. M return 


return from Egypt, they must have seen the weakness 
of so partial a suspicion. For had this been after the 
model of an Egyptian rite, Abraham, in all likelihood, 
had been circumcised in Egypt, or at least very soon after 
his return : for in Egypt, it was a personal, not a family 
Rite. And we learn from profane history, that those 
who went from other Countries to Egypt , with a design 
to copy their manners, or to be initiated into their 
Wisdom, were, as a previous ceremony, commonly cir 
cumcised by the Egyptian Priests themselves. 

P. 16. [D]. To this Dr. Stebbing answers, " You lay 
" it down here as the common interpretation, that the 
c command to Abraham to offer up his son was given 
" as a trial only, WHICH is NOT TRUE." Why not? 
because " the common opinion is, that God s intention 
" in this command was not only to TRY Abraham, but 
" also to PREFIGURE the sacrifice of Christ." [Consid. 
p. 150.] Excellent! I speak of the Command s being 
given : but to whom ? To all the Faithful, for whose sake 
it was recorded ? or to Abraham only, for whose sake 
it was revealed ? Does not the very subject confine my 
meaning to this latter sense ? Now, to Abraham, I say, 
(according to the common opinion) it was given as a 
Trial only. To the faithful, if you will, as a prefi- 
guration. If, to extricate himself from this blunder or 
sophism, call it which you will, he will say it prefigured 
to Abraham likewise ; he then gives up all he has been 
contending for ; and establishes my interpretation, which 
is, that Abraham knew this to be a representation of the 
great sacrifice of Christ : I leave it undetermined whether 
he mistakes or cavils; See now, if he be not obliged to 
hie. Wliere I speak of the common opinion, I say, the 
command is supposed to be GIVEN as a Trial only. Hfc 
thinks fit to tell me, / say not true. But when he comes 
to prove it, he changes the terms of the question thus, 
" -For the common opinion is, that GOD S INTENTION- 
IS " in 


" in this command was/ &c. Now God s intention of 
giving a command to Abraham, for Abraham s sake, 
mi^ht be one thing ; and God s general intention of 
giving that Command, as it concerned the whole of his 
Dispensation, another. But to prove further that I said 
not true, when I said that, according to the common 
interpretation, the Command was given for a Trial only ; 
he observes, that I myself had owned that the resemblance 
to Christ s sacrifice was so strong, that Interpreters could 
never overlook it. What then? If the Interpreters, who 
lived after Christ, could not overlook it, does it follow 
that Abraham, who lived before, could not overlook it 
neither? But the impertinence of this has been shewn 
already. Nor does the learned Consider er appear to be 
unconscious of it. Therefore, instead of attempting to 
inforce it to the purpose for which he quotes it, he turns, 
all on a sudden, to shew that it makes nothing to the 
purpose for which / employed it. But let us follow this 
Protean Sophister through all his windings, c; The 
resemblance (says he) no doubt, is very strong ; but 
" how this corroborates your sense of the command, I do 
fi not see. Your sense is, that it was an actual infor- 
" mation given to Abraham, of the sacrifice of Christ, 
" But to prefigure^ and to inform, are different things. 
u Tins transaction might prefigure, and does prefigure the 
" sacrifice of Christ ; whether Abraham knew any thing of 
" the sacrifice of Christ or no. For it does not follow, 
u that, because a thing is prefigured, therefore it must be 
" seen and understood, at the time when it is- prefigured." 
[Comid. pp. 150, 151.] Could it be believed that these 
words should immediately follow an argument, whose force 
(the little it tyas) is founded on the principle, That to 
PREFIGURE and to INFORM are NOT different things f 

P. 17. [E]. To this reasoning, Dr. Stebbing replies, 
f Bqt how can you prove that, according to the common 
" interpretation there was no reward subsequent to the 

M 2 " trial? 


" trial?" [Consid. p. 151.] How shall I be able to please 
him ? Before, he was offended that I thought the 
Author of the book of Genesis might ornit relating the 
mode of a fact, when he had good reason so to do. Here, 
where I suppose no fact, because there was none recorded 
when no reasoa hindered, he is as captious on this side 
likewise. " How will you prove it?" (says he). From 
the silence of the Historian (say 1) when nothing hin 
dered him from speaking. Weil, but he will shew it to 
be fairly recorded in Scripture, that there were rewards 
subsequent to the trial. This, indeed, is to the purpose : 
" Abraham (says he) lived a great many years after that 
" transaction happened, lie lived to dispose of his son 
u Isaac in marriage, and to see his seed. He lived to 
" be married himself to another Wife, and to have 
" several children by her : He had not THEN received 
" all God s mercies, nor were all God s dispensations 
" towards him at an end ; and it is to be remembered 
u that it is expressly said of Abraham, Gen. xxiv. i. 
w (a long time after the transaction in question), that 
" God had blessed him in all things" [Comid. p. 1.51, 2.} 
The question here is of the extraordinary and peculiar 
rewards bestowed by God on Abraham ; and he decides 
upon it, by an enumeration of the ordinary and common. 
And, to fill up the measure of these blessings, he makes 
the burying of his first wife and the marrying of a second 
to be one. Though unluckily, this second proves at last 
to be a Concubine ; as appears plainly from the place 
where she is -mentioned. But let me ask him seriously; 
Could he, indeed, suppose me to mean (though lie 
attended not to the xlrilt of the argument) that God 
immediately withdrew all the common blessings of his 
Providence from the Father of the Faithful, after the last 
extraordinary reward bestowed upon him, when he lived 
many years after ? I can hardly, I own, account for this 
perversity, any otherwise than from a certain temper of 
mind which I am not at present disposed to give a name 



to: but which, the habit of Answering has made so 
common, that nobody either mistakes it, or is now indeed, 
much scandalized at it. Though for my part, I should 
esteem a total ignorance of letters a much happier lot 
than such a learned depravity. " IJut this is not all," 
(says he) No, is it not? I am sorry for it! -"What 
" surprises me most is, that you should argue so WEAKLY, 
** as if the reward of good mew had respect to this life 
4< only. 15e it, that Abraham had received all God s 
" mercies ; and that all C rod s dispensations towards 
46 him, in this world, were at an end ; was there not a 
" life yet to come, with respect to which the whole 
" period of our existence here is to be considered as a 
" state of trial ; and where we are all of us to look for 
" that reward of our virtues which we very often fail 
** of in this?" [Co/wid. p. 1.52.] Well, if it was not all, 
we .find, at least, it is all of a piece. For, as before, he 
would sophistically obtrude upon us common for extra 
ordinary KE .WARDS; so here (true to the mystery of 
his trade) lie puts common for extraordinary TRIALS. 
Our present existence (says he) is to be considered as <i 
state of Trixl. The case, to which I applied my argu 
ment, was this ; " God. determining to select a chosen 
People from the loins of Abraham, would manifest to the 
world that this Patriarch was worthy of the distinction 
shewn unto him, by having his faith found superior to the 
hardest trials/ Now, in speaking of these trials, I said, 
that the command to offer Isaac was the last. No (says 
the Examiner) that cannot be, for, with respect to a life 
to come, the whole period of our existence here, is to be 
considered as a state of TRIAL/ And so again (says he) 
with regard to the REWARD ; which you pretend, in the 
order of God s Dispensation, should follow the trial: 
Wiry, we are to look for it in another world. Holy Scrip 
ture records the history of one, to whom God only pro 
mised (in the clear and obvious sense) temporal blessings. 
It tells us that these temporal blessings were dispensed. 

ai 3 Ono 


One species of which were extraordinary Rewards after 
extraordinary Trials. In the most extraordinary of all, 
no Reward followed : This was mv difficulty. See 

/ / 

here, how he has cleared it up. Hardly indeed to his 
own satisfaction : for he tries to save all by another fetch ; 
the weakest men being ever most fruitful in expedients, 
as the slowest animals have commonly the most feet. 
" And what (says he) if after all this, the wisdom of 
" God should have thought tit, that this very man, whom 
" he had singled out to be an eminent example of piety 
" to all generations ; should, at the very close of his life, 
" give evidence of it, by an instance that exceeded all 
" that had gone before ; that he might be a pattern of 
" patient suffering even unto the end ? Would there not 
" be SENSE in such a supposition?" [Gonxid. p. 153.] 
In truth, I doubt not, as he hath put it : And I will tell 
him, Why. Abraham w r as not a mere instrument to 
stand for an example only ; but a moral Agent likewise ; 
and to be dealt with as such. Now, though, as he stands 
for an Example, we may admit of as many Trials of 
patient suffering as this good-natured Divine thinks 
fitting to impose ; yet, as a moral Agent, it is required 
(if we can conclude any thing from the method of God s 
dealing with his Servants, recorded in sacred history) 
that each Trial be attended with some work done, or 
some reward conferred. But these two parts in-Abra^- 
ham s character, our Considerer perpetually confounds, 
He supposes nothing to be done for Abraham s own 
sake ; but every thing for the Example s sake. Yet, did 
the good old cause of Answering require, he could as 
easily suppose the contrary. And to shew I do him no 
wrong, I will here give the Reader an instance of his 
dexterity, in the counter-exercise of his arms. In p. 150. 
of these Considerations (he says) " JT POES NOT FOLLOW, 
" that, because a thing is prefigured, therefore it must 
" be seen and understood AT THE TIME when it is 
" prefigured." Yet in the body of the Pamphlet, at 



pp. 112, 113, having another point to puzzle ; he says 
(on my observing that a future State and Resurrection 
were not national Doctrines till the time of the Maccabees) 
" he knows I will say they had these doctrines from the 
" Prophets yet the Prophets were dead two hundred 
" years before." But if the Prophets were dead, their 
Writings were extant - "And what then? Is it LIKELY 


" that the sons should have learnt from the dead Pro- 
" phets what the Fathers could not learn from the 
" living? Why could not the Jews learn this Doctrine 
" from THE VERY FIRST, as well as their Posterity at 
" the distance of ages afterwards?" In the first case \ve 
find he expressly says, it docs not follow ; in the second, 
he as plainly supposes, that it docs. 

P. 19. [F]. And yet an ingenious man, one M.Bouiller, 
in a late Latin Dissertation, accuses me of concealing, 
that Chrysostorn, Erasmus, and others, were of my 
opinion, viz. that Abraham in the Command to sacrifice 
iiis Son was informed, of what he earnestly desired to 
know, that the redemption of Mankind was to be obtained, 
by the sacrifice of the Son of God. The Reader now 
sees, whether the Author oi the Divine Legation was guilty 
of a concealed theft, or his Accuser of an open blunder, 
under which he covers his orthodoxal malignity. Yet he 
thinks he atones for all, by calling The Divine Legation 
egrcgium opus : ubi ingcniuni accrrinnun cum t\iimia cm- 
ditionc ccrtat. Dissertationum Sacrum Sylloge, p. 194. 

P. 20, [G]. To this, the great Professor replies, That 
* there are but few gestures of the body more apt of 

" themselves to signify the sentiment of the mind than 
1 articulate sound: The force of which arises not from 

" the nature of things ; but from the arbitrary will of 
1 man : and common use and custom imposes this 
1 signification on articulate sounds, not on motions and 
1 gestures Pauci sunt motus corporis, qui ipsi per se 

" aptiores esse videntur ad motus animi significandos, 

M 4 " quarn 


" quam sonus, qui ore et lingua in vocem formatur. 

Vis ipsa non cst in natura rerum posita, sed arbitrio 
" hominum constituta; eainqnc mos et usus communis 
" non gcstibus corporis tribuit, sed verbis et voci." 
R UTH Eiii-o IITII, Dctcrm. 

The purpose of this fine observation, though so cloudily 
expressed, is to shew that motion and gesture can have 
no signification at all : Not from nature, since few 
gestures of the body are more apt of themselves to 
express the mind than articulate sound ; and yet articu 
late sound is of arbitrary signification : Not from insti 
tution, since it is not to gesture, but to articulate sound, 
that men have agreed to affix a meaning. The conse 
quence is, that gesture can have no meaning at all ; and 
so there is an end of all Abraham s SIGNIFICATIVE 
ACT rox. The Divine would make a great figure, were 
it not for his Bible ; but the Bible is perpetually dis 
orienting the Philosopher. His general Thesis is, " That 
actions can never become significative but by the aid of 
words." Now I desire to know what he thinks of all the 
TYPICAL Rites of the Late, significative of the Sacrifice 
of Christ? Were not these Actions? Had they no mean 
ing which extended to the Gospel? or were there any 
Words to accompany them, which explained that mean 
ing? Yet has this man asserted, in what he calls a 
Determination, that in the instances of expressive gesture, 
recorded in Scripture, words were a lie ays used in con 
junction with them. But to come a little closer to him. 
As a Philosopher he should have given his Reasons for 
those two assertions; or as an Historian he should have 
verified his Facts. He hath attempted neither; and 
I commend his prudence ; for both are against him :.. 
His Fact, that gestures have no meaning by nature^ is 
false : and his Reasoning, that they have none by insti 
tution ^ is mistaken. The Spartans might instruct him 
that gestures alone have a natural meaning, That sage 
People (as we are told by Herodotus) were so persuaded 



of this truth, that they preferred converse by action, to 
converse by speech ; as action had all the clearness of 
speech, and was free from the abuses of it. This 
Historian, in his Thalia, informs us, that when the. 
Samians sent to Lacedemon for succours in distress, their 
Orators made a long and laboured speech. AY hen it 
was ended, the Spartans told them, tlnit the first part of 
it they had for got ten, and could not comprehend the latter. 
Whereupon the Samian Orators produced their empty 
Bread-baskets, and said, they wanted bread. JThat 
need of words, replied the Spartans, do not your empty 
Bread-baskets sufficiently declare your meaning ? Thus 
we see the Spartans thought not onlv that gestures were 
apt (>/ t/;etmelir# (or by nature) to signify tne sentiment 
of the wind, but even more apt than articulate sounds. 
Their relations, the Jews, were in the same sentiments 
and practice; and full as sparing of their words ;* and 
{the two languages considered) for something a better 
reason. The sacred Historian, speaking of public days 
of humiliation, tells his story in this manner And they 
gathered together to Mizpch, AXD DIU;W WATER AND 
POURED IT OUT BKFOKE THE LOUD, (wdfcuted on that 
day, i. Sam. chap. vii. ver. 6. The Historian does not 
explain in words the meaning of this drawing of water, &c. 
nor needed he. It sufficiently expressed, that a deluge 
fif tears teas due for their offences. The Professor, 
perhaps, will say that words accompanied the action, 
at least preceded it. Put what will he say to the action 
of Tarquin, when lie struck off the heads of the higher 
poppies which overtopped their fellows ? Here we are 
expressly told, that all was done in profound silence, 
and yet the action was well understood. But further, 
I will tell our Professor what he least suspected, that 
Gestures, besides their natural^ have often an arbitrary 
signification. " A certain Asiatic Prince, entertained at 
Home by Augustus, was, amongst other Shows and 
Festivities, amused with a famous Pantomime ; whose 



actions were so expressive, that the Barbarian begged 
him of the Emperor for his Interpreter between him 
and several neighbouring Nations, whose languages were 
unknown to one another." Pantomimic gesture was 
amongst the Romans one way of exhibiting a Dramatic 
Story. But before such gestures could be formed into a 
continued series of Information, we cannot but suppose 
much previous pains and habit of invention to be exerted 
by the Actors. Amongst which, one expedient must needs 
he (in order to make the expression of the Actors convey 
an entire connected sense) to intermix with the gestures 
naturally significative, gestures made significative by 
institution** that is, brought, by.qrbitiwy use, to have as- 
determined a meaning as the others. 

To illustrate this by that more lasting information, the 
Hieroglyphics of the Egyptians, and the real Characters 
of the Chinese; which, as we have shewn, run parallel 
with the more fleeting conveyance of expressive gesture, 
just as alphabetic writing does with speech. Now, though 
the-earlier Hieroglyphics were composed almost altogether 
of marks naturally significative, yet when the Egyptians 
came to convey continued and more precise discourses by 
this mode of writing, they found a necessity of inventing 
arbitrary significations, to intermix and connect with the 
other marks which had a natural. [See vol. iv. p. 1 25.] 

Now, to shew that these arbitrary Hieroglyphic marks 
were real Characters like the other, let us turn to the 
Characters of the Chinese, which though (in their present 
way of use) most of them be of arbitrary signification, 
yet the Missionaries assure us that they are understood 
by all the neighbouring nations of different languages. 
This shews that the Augustan Pantomime, so coveted by 
the Barbarian for his interpreter, might be very able to 
disc! targe his function, though several of his gestures had 
an arbitrary signification. And we easily conceive how 
it might come to pass, since the gesture of arbitrary sig 
nification oaly served to connect the active discourse, by 



standing between others of a natural signification, direct 
ing to their sense. 

Thus (to conclude with our Determiner) it appears 
that GESTURES ALOXE are so far from having no meaning 
at all, as he has ventured to affirm, that they have all the 
meaning which human expression can possibly convey: 
all which is properly their own, namely, natural informa 
tion ; and even much of that which is more peculiar to 
speech, namely, arbitrary. 

To illustrate the whole by a domestic instance ; the 
solemn gesture of a Professor in his Chair ; which $ome-< 
times may naturally happen, to signify Folly; though, by 
institution, it always signifies Wisdom ; and yet again, it 
must be owned, in justice to our Professor s scheme, that 
sometimes it means nothing at all. 

P. 24. [H]. Would the reader now believe it possible, 
fc heu these words lay before Dr. Stebbing, while he was 
answering my Book, that he should venture to ask me, 
or be capable of asking these insulting questions Was 
there any good use that Abraham could make of this 
knowledge which the rest of the People of God might not 
have made of it as well as He ? Or if it was not unfit 
for every body else, was it not unfit for Abraham too? 

P. 25. [I]. But all I can say, or all an Apostle can 
say, if I chance to say it after him, will not satisfy 
Dr. Stebbing. He yet sticks to his point, " That if any 
" information of. the death and sacrifice of Christ had 
" been intended, it is NATURAL TO THINK that the ex- 
" planation would have been Recorded with the trans- 
< action, as it is in all other SUCH LIKE CASES." Now 
if this orthodox Gentleman will shew me a such like case, 
i. e. a case where a Revelation of the Gospel Dispensa 
tion is made by an expressive action, and the explanation 
is recorded along with it, I shall be ready to Qonfess, 
he has made a pertinent objection. In the meantime, f 
Jiave something more to say to him. He supposes, that this 



commanded Sacrifice of Isaac was a TY PE of the Sacrifice 
of Chiist. To this a Deist replies, in the Doctor s own 
words, " If any type had been here intended, it is 
** natural to think that the explanation would have been 
" recorded with the transaction." Now when the Doctor 
has satisfied the objection, which he has lent the Deists, 
against a TYPE, I suppose it may serve to satisfy him 
self, when he urges it against my idea of the Command, 
as an IN FORM ATI ox BY ACTION. Again, our Answerer 
himself affirms that the doctrine of Redemption was de 
livered under Types in the Law ; and that the doctrine 
thus delivered was designedly secreted and concealed from 
the ancient Jews, Now is it natural to think (to use 
his own words) that Moses would openly and plainly re 
cord a Doctrine in one book which he had determined to 
secrete in another, when both were for the use of the same 
Peopie and the same Age } 

P. 25. [K]. u You must give me leave to observe 
* l (says Dr. Stebbing) that the transaction in question 
" will have the same efficacy to shew the dependency 
" between the two dispensation*, whether Abraham had 
" thereby any information of the Sacrifice of Christ or 
" not." [Consid. p. 150 .] This, indeed, is saying some 
thing. And, could he prove what he says, it would be 
depriving my interpretation of one of its principal ad 
vantages. Let us see then how he goes about it, tc for 
" this does not arise from Abraham s KNOWLEDGE, or 
" any body s KNOWLEDGE, at the time when the trans- 
** action happened, but from the similitude and corre- 
" spotidency between the event and the transaction, by 
4i which it was prefigured ; which is exactly the same 
" upon either supposition." [Ibid, pp, 156, 7.] To this I 
reply, 1. That I never supposed that the dependency 
between the two Dispensations did arise from Abrahams 
knowledge, or any body s knowledge, at that, or at any 
other time; but from God s INTENTION that this com 


manded action should import or represent the Sacrifice 
pf Christ : and then indeed comes in the question, 
Whether that Intention be best discovered from God s 
declaration of it to Abraham, or from a similitude and 
correspondency between this commanded action and the 
Sacrifice of Christ, Therefore, 2. I make bold to tell 
him, that a similitude and correspondency between the 
event and the transact/on which prefigured it, is XOT 
ENOUGH to shew this dependency, to the satisfaction of 
Unbelievers ; who say, that a likeness between two things 
of the same nature, such as offering up two men to death, 
in different ways, and transacted in two distant periods, 
is not sufficient alone to shew that they had any relation 
to one another. With the same reason, they will say, we 
might pretend that Jephtha s daughter, or the king of 
Moab s son whom the father sacrificed on the wall, 
2 Kings iii. 27. were the types of Christ s sacrifice. 
Give us, they exult, a proof from Scripture that God 
declared or revealed his INTENTION of prefiguring the, 
death of Jesus ; or some better authority *at least than a 
modern Typifier, who deals only in similitudes and cor- 
respondences, and has all the wiidness, without the wit, of 
a Poet, and all the weakness, without the ingenuity, of 
an Analogist! Now whether it be our Examiner, or the 
Author of the D rdne Legation, who has given them this 
satisfaction, or whether they have any reason to require it 
of either of us, is left to the impartial Reader to consider. 

P. 27. [L]. Let us sec now v>hat Dr. Stebbing has 
to say to this reasoning. " By your leave, Sir/ says lie, 
(which, by the way, he never asks, but to abuse me; nor 
ever takes, but to misrepresent me) " if the Apostle had 
" meant by this expression, to signify that Isaac stood as 
" the Representative of Christ, and that his being taken 
" from the mount alive, was the figure of Christ s Re- 
" surrection; it SHOULD have been said, that Abraham 
" received CHRIST from the dead in a figure." Should 



it so? What? where the discourse was not concerning 


Christy but Isaac? Had, indeed, the sacred Writer been 
speaking of Abraham s knowledge of Christ, something 
might have been said; but he is speaking of a very dif 
ferent thing, hisjaith in Got/; and only intimates, by a 
strong expression, what he understood that action to be, 
which he gives, as an instance of the most illustrious act 
of faith. I say, had this been the case, something might 
have been said; something, I mean, just to keep him in 
countenance; yet still, nothing to the purpose, as I shall 
now shew. The transaction of the Sacrifice of Christ 
related to GOD. The figure of that transaction, in the 
command to offer Isaac, related (according to my inter 
pretation) to ABRAHAM. Now, it was God who received 
Christ; as it was Abraham who received the type or 
figure of Christ, in Isaac. To tell us then, that (accord 
ing to my interpretation) it SHOULD have been said, that 
Abraham received CHRIST j% the dead in a figure, is, 
in effect, telling us that he knows no more of logical ex 
pression than of theological reasoning. It is true, could 
he shew the expression improper, in the sense which I 
give to the transaction, he would then speak a little to the 
purpose; and this, to do him justice, is what he would 
fain be at. " For, Christ it was, according to your in- 
" terpretation (says he) that was received from the 
" dead in a figure, by Isaac his Representative, who 
" really came alive from the mount. If the reading had 
" been, not lv zra/>aoA?, but ? MpaC&y, it would have 
" suited your notion ; for it might properly have been 
" said, that Isaac came alive from the mount as a figure, 
" or that he might be a figure of the Resurrection of 
" Christ." [Consid. p. 147.] Miserable chicane ! As, on 
the one hand, I might say with propriety, that CHRIST 
was received from the dead in a figure, i. e. BY a re 
presentative : so on the other, I might say that ISAAC 
was received from the dead in a figure, i. e. AS a repre 
sentative: For Isaac sustaining the person of Christ, who 



was raised from the dead, might in ajigure, i. e. as that 
person, be said to be received : yet this our Examiner 
denies, and tells us, the Apostle SHOULD have said that 
Abraham received CHRIST, and not ISAAC. " But 
" (adds he) if the reading had been not lv na/ja&Aij, but 
" lit TiapxZoXw, it \vouid have suited your notion. And 
the reason he gives is this: " For it might properly have 
" been said tliat Isaac came alive from the mount AS a 
" .figure, or THAT HE MIGHT BE a figure of the resur- 
" rection of Christ." Strange ! He says, this would have 
suited my notion; and the reason ,he gives, shews it suits 
only hi$ men; which is, that the exactness of the resem 
blance between the two actions, not the declaration of 
the Giver of the Command, made it a figure. This is 
the more extraordinary, as I myself have here shewn 
that the old Latin translator had turned the words into 
ix PAUABOLAM instead of IN PARABOLA, for this very 
reason, because he understood the command in the sense 
our Examiner contends for; viz. That Isaac, by the 
resemblance of the actions, MIGHT BE, or might become 
a figure. 

However, he owns at last that " a reason will still be 
" wanting, why, instead of speaking the fact as it really 
" was, that Isaac came alive from the mount; the 
" Apostle chose rather to say (what. was not really the 
" case) that Abraham received him J rom the dead. * 
[Consid. pp. 147, 8.] Well; and have not I given a 
reason? No matter for that: Dr. Stebbing is turned 
Examiner, and has engrossed the market. His reason 
follows thus, " If Isaac did not die (as it is certain he 
" did not) Abraham could not receive him from the dead. 
" And yet the Apostle says, he received him from the 
" dead. The clearing UP this difficulty will shew the true 
" sense of the passage." [Consid. pp. 147, 148.] What, 
will the clearing up a difficulty of his own making dis 
cover the true sense of another man s writing ? This is 
one pf his new improvements in Logic; in which, as in 



Arithmetic, he lias invented a rule of fake, to discover 
an unknown truth. For there is none of this difficulty 


in the sacred Text; it is not there (as in our Examiner) 
said simply, that Abraham received Isaac from the dead, 
but that lie received him from the dead IN A FIGURE, 
or under the assumed personage of Christ. Nqvr if 
Christ died, then he, who assumed his personage, in 
order to represent his passion and resurrection, might 
surely be said to he recerccd from the dead in a figure. A 
wonderful difficulty truly ! and we shall see, as wonder 
fully solved; by a conundrum! Itot with propriety 
enough. For as a real difficulty requires sense and criti 
cism to resolve it, an imaginary one may be well enough 
managed by a quibble. Because the translators of St. 
Mark s Gospel have rendered I* -srotot, srapaoA? by, with 
*&hat comparison shall ice compare it, therefore, Iv s-ajja- 
CA>I, in the text in question, signifies COMPARATIVELY 
SPEAKING. But no words can shew him like his own 
" The Apostle docs not say simply and absolutely, that 
" Abraham received Isaac from the dead; but that he 
" received him from the dead ly wapaSoyS, in a parable." 
See here now ! Did not I tell you so ? There was no 
difficulty all this while: The sentence only opened to the 
right and left to let in a blustering objection, which is no 
sooner evaporated than it closes again as before. // was 
not simply said- No. " 1 tot that he received him lv 
" 3raaoAj in a parable, i. e. in a comparison, or by com- 
" parison. Thus the word is used, Mark iv. 30. Whert- 
" unto shall we liken the, kingdom oj God, or with what 
V COMPARISON [Iv -&oia, ir/iffli(>AjfJ shall we compare it. 
u The meaning then may be, that Abraham s receiving 
" Isaac alive (after his death was denounced) by the re- 
" vocation of the command; was AS IF HE HAD re- 
<{ ceived hirxi from the dead. Thus several Interpreters 
" understand the place. Or it may be, as others will have 
" it, that the Apostle here refers to the birth of Isaac; 
" which was [li/ r^a^A?J COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING, 

a receiving 


" a receiving him from the dead ; his father being old, 
" and his mother past the age of child-bearing, on which 
" account the Apostle styles them both dead. Which in- 
" terpretation, I the rather approve, because it suggests 
" the proper grounds of Abraham s faith." [Consid. 
pp. 148, 149-] 

He says, lv f;afoXn signifies in or by comparison ; and 
that the word is so used in St. Mark ; to prove which, he 
quotes the English translation. Now I must take the 
liberty to tell him, that the translators were mistaken ; 
and he with them. ncaoA*, in St. Mark, is not used in 
the sense of a similitude w ^comparison, but of sparable* 
The ancients had two ways of illustrating the things they 
inforced ; the one was by a parable, the other by a simple 
comparison or simile : how the latter of these arose out 
of the former I have shewn in the fourth Volume. Here, 
both these modes of illustration are referred to; which 
should have been translated thus, To what shall zee 
COMPARE the kingdom of God, or with what PARABLE 
shall ice illustrate or parabolize it. epowrvjufv tc-apa- 
aAwui* which words express two different and well- 
known modes of illustration. 

But now suppose lv TVOIX eragaGoty had signified zcith 
tch at comparison : How comes it to pass that lv sra/- 
CCAJ? should signify by comparison, or as it were, or 
COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING r In plain truth, his critical 
analogy has ended in a pleasant blunder. How so? 
you will ask. Nay, tis true there s no denying, but that 
speaking by comparison is comparatively speaking ; and, 
if men will put another sense upon it, who can help 
that? they say, comparatively speaking signifies the 
speaking loosely, inaccurately, and incorrectly. But was 
it for our Doctor to put his reader in mind of such kind 
of speakers? But the charge of a blunder, an innocent 
jtfishap, I am ready to retract ; for I observe him to go 
into it with much artful preparation; a circumstance 
which by^ no means marks that genuine turn of mind, 

VOL, VI. N which 


which is quick and sudden, and over head and ears, in an 
instant: He begins with explaining, in a comparison, 
by by comparison: where you just get the first glimpse, 
as it were, of an enascent equivocation ; and his by com 
parison is presently afterwards turned into tf.y it zcere, or 
as if he had; and then, comparatively speaking brings up 
the rear, and closes the criticism three deep. 

P. 29. [M], Dr. Stebbing goes on as usual " In 
u short, Sir, I do not understand this Doctrine (with 
" which your whole Work much abounds) of revealing 
" things clearly to Patriarchs, and Prophets, and Leaders, 
cc as a special favour to themselves;, but to be kept as a 
" secret from the rest of Mankind," -It is but too plain 
he does not understand it : for which I can give no better 
reason than that, it is the Scripture-doctrine, and not the 
doctrine of Sums and Systems. " I have been used (says 
" he) to consider persons under this character, as ap- 
" pointed, not for themselves, but for others ; and therefore 
" to conclude that WHATEVER was clearly revealed to 


" them, concerning God s Dispensations, was so revealed 
" in order to be communicated to others*." This is the 
old sophism; " That, because Persons act and are em 
ployed for others ; therefore, they do nothing, and have 
nothing done for themselves." When God said, Shall I 
hide from Abraham that thing, which I do ? was not 
this said to, and for himself? But he has another to 
match it, " That whatever was clearly revealed to the. 
Prophets, was so revealed, in order to be communicated 
to others." Here, then, a little Scripture-doctrine will 
do him no harm. Did Moses communicate all he knew 
to the Jews, concerning the Christian Dispensation; which 
the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us was 
clearly revealed to him in the mount r Priests (says he) 
that offer gifts according to the Law, rcho serve unto the 
example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses avw 
admonished of God when he was about to make the Taber- 
* Consid. pp. 155, 156. nacle. 


nacle *. Again, We find that Ezekiel, on his being called 
out, upon his .mission, saw (what the author of Ecclesi* 
asticus calls) the glorious vision ; and had (as appears 
from the allegory of the roll of a book) a full interpre 
tation thereof. Yet, notwithstanding all his illumination, 
he was directed by God to speak so obscurely to the 
People, that he found cause to complain, Ah> Lord, they 
say of me. Doth he not speak parables \? And now let 
him ask the Prophets in the same magisterial language he 
is accustomed to examine me, Was there any good use 
you could make of your knowledge, that the People of 
God might not have made of it as well as you ? But 
this very Dispensation is alluded to, and continued, under 
the kingdom of Christ. And his Disciples ashed him 
saying, What might this parable be ? And he said, Unto 
you it is green to know the mysteries of the kingdom of 
God: But to others, in parables , that seeing they might 
not see, and hearing they might not understand^. Again, 
St. John in his visions tells us, And when the seven 
thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write. 
And 1 heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, SEAL 
UP those things which the seven thunders uttered, and 
WRITE THEM NOT. Rev. x. 4. And now, Reader, I 
shall try his gratitude! " If you can shew, (says he) 
" that I am mistaken in this, pray do it, and I shall be 
" obliged to you." p. 156. You see, I have taken him 
at his word. And it was well I did ; for it was no sooner 
out of his mouth, than, as if he had repented, not of his 
candour, but his confidence, he immediately cries, Hold 
and tells me, " I might have spared myself in asking 
" another question, Why, if Revelations cannot be clearly 
" recorded, are they recorded at all?" p. 1 56. But, great 
Defender of the Faith ! of the ancient Jewish Church, 
I mean, I asked that question, because the answer to it 
shews how much you are mistaken ; as the intelligent 
Reader, by this time, easily perceives. But why does he 
* Keb. viii, 4, 5. f Ezek. xx. 49. J Luke viii. 9, ic 

N 2 say 


say I might have spared that question? Because " if a 
" Revelation is not clearly given, it cannot be clearly 
* recorded/ p. i. r >t>. Did I say it could ? Or \\ill lie 
say, that there are no reasons why a Revelation-, that is 
clearly given, should be obscurely recorded ? To what 
purpose,, then, was the observation made? Made? why 
to introduce another : for, with our eqvivocal Examiner, 
the corruption of argument is the generation of cavil. 
" And yet (says he) as you INTIMATE, there may be 
" reasons why an OBS-CUBK REVELATIOX should be 
* recorded, to wit, for the instruction of future ages, 
" when, the obscurity being cleared up by the event, 
" it shall appear, that it was foreseen and fore-ordained 
" in the knowledge and appointment of God/ p. 1.56. 
If thou wilt believe me, Reader, I never intimated any 
thing so absurd. 

What I intimated was not concerning an obscure 
Rccdativn, but a Ri-v clarion obscurely recorded. These 
are very different things, as appears from hence, that the 
latter may be, a clear Rrcclalioi ; the word being relative 
to him to whom the Revelation- was made. But this is 
a peccadillo only. However he approves the reason of 
recording- : for that, thereby, " it shall appear, that IT 
was foreseen and fcre-ordaincd by God." IT, What? 
The obscure Rtvclafion, according to grammatical con 
struction : but, in his English, I suppose, IT stands for 
the fact revealed. Well then ; from the recording of an 
obscure revelation, he says it will appear, when the fore 
told tact happens, that it was foreseen and -pre-ordained 
by God. This too lie tells the Reader I intimated; but 
sure, the Reader can never think me so silly ; For every 
fact, whether prefigured and foretold, or not prefigured 
and foretold, must needs have been foreseen and pre 
ordained by God. Now, whether we arc to ascribe this 
to exactness, or to inaccuracy, of expression, is hard to 
say. For I find him a great master in that species of 
composition which a celebrated French Writer,, in his 




encomium on the Revelation, calls, en clarie noire. How 
ever, think what we will of his head, his heart lies too 
open to be misjudged of. 

P. 30. [X]. This infk el obj ctiou, ths Reader sees, 
consists of two parts : the one, that Abraham must needs 
doubt of the Author -of the Command: the other, that 
lie would be misled, bv conceiving amiss of his Attri 
butes, to believe human sacrifices wjre grateful to him. 
Dr. Stebbing, who will leave nothing unanswered, will 
needs answer this, [Coiisid. pp. 158, 160.] To the first 
part he replies, partly by the assistance I myself had given 
him, (where I took notice of what might be urged by 
Believers, as of great weight and validity) and partly 
from what he had picked up elsewhere. But here I shall 
avoid imitating Ins example, who, hi .spite to the Author 
of Arguments professedly brought in support of Religion, 
strives, with all his might, to shew tiieir, invalidity ; an 
employment, one would think, little becoming a Christian 
Divine. If the common arguments against the objection, 
here urged by him vuth great pomp; have any weak parts, 
I shall leave them to Unbelievers to find out I have 
the more reason likewise to trust them to their own 
weight, both because they are none of his, and because 
I have acknowledged their validity. For .which acknow 
ledgement, all I get is this Whether yuu Jiad oicned 
this or not (says he) I shott-fal have taken iiponinywlj the 
pruof. Whereas, all that lie has taLtn rs the ptyperty 
of other Writers ; made his own, indeed, by a weak and 
an imperfect representation. But h is answer to the 
second pait of the infidel objection must not .be passed 
over so slightly, 4> As to the latter part of the objection 
* (says he) thatjfawi this command, Abraham and A/y 
"family must needs have thought hitman sacrifices a^ 
" cep table to God ; the revoking the command at last 
" was a sufficient guard against any such construction. 
* To this you make the Unbeliever answer ; No, became 

N 3 " the 


u the action having been commanded, ought to have been 
" condemned , and a simple revocation was no condem- 
" nation. But why was not the revocation of the Corn- 
<c mand, in this case, a condemnation of the action ? If 
" I should tempt you to go and kill your next neighbour, 
" and afterwards come and desire you not to do it ; 
* would not this after-declaration be as good an evidence 
* of my dislike to the action, as the first was of my 
" approbation of it? Yes, and a much better, as it 
" may be presumed to have been the result of maturer 
* deliberation. Now, though deliberation and after- 
" thought are not incident to God ; yet as God in this 
" case condescended (as you say, and very truly) to 
66 act after the manner of men ; the same construction 
(l should be put upon his actions, as are usually put 
" upon the actions of men in like cases." [Consid. 
pp. 160, 161.] Now, though, as was said above, I would 
pay all decent regard becoming a friend of Revelation, 
to the common arguments of others in its defence, yet 
I must not betray my own. I confessed they had great 
weight and validity ; yet, at the same time, I asserted, 
they were attended with insuperable difficulties. And 
while I so think, I must beg leave to inforce my reasons 
for this opinion ; and, I hope, without offence ; as the 
arguments, I am now about to examine, are purely this 
Writer s own. And the Reader, by this time, has seen 
too much of him to be apprehensive, that the lessening 
his Authority will be attended with any great disservice 
to Religion. 

I had observed, that the reasonings of Unbelievers on 
this case, as it is commonly explained, were not devoid 
of all plausibility, when they proceeded thus, " That as 
Abraham lived amongst Heathens, whose highest act 
of divine worship was human sacrifices ; if God had com 
manded that Act, and, on the point of performance, only 
remitted it as a favour, (and so it is represented ;) with 
out declaring the iniquity of the practice, when addressed 



to Idols ; or his abhorrence of it, when directed to 
himself; the Family must have been misled in their ideas 
concerning the moral rectitude of that species of religious 
worship : Therefore, God, in these circumstances, had 
he commanded the action as a trial wily, would have 
explicitly condemned that mode of worship, as immoral. 
But he is not represented as condemning, but as remitting 
it for a favour : Consequently, say the Unbelievers, 
God did not command the action at all." To this our 
Examiner replies, But why ? Was not the revocation 
of the command, a condemnation of the action? If 
/ should tempt you to go and kill your next neighbour, 
and afterwards come and DESIRE you not to do it, would 
not tills after-declaration be as gooil an evidence of my 
dislike to the action, as thejirst was of my approbation of 
it ? To this I reply ; That the cases are by no means 
parallel, either in themselves, or in their circumstances: 
Not in themselves; the murder of our next neighbour 
was, amongst all the Gentiles of that time, esteemed a 
high immorality ; Avhile, on the contrary, human sacrifice 
was a very holy and acceptable part of divine Worship : 
Not in their circumstances: the desire to forbear the 
murder tempted to, is (in the case he puts) represented 
as repentance ; whereas the stop put to the sacrifice of 
Isaac (in the case Moses puts) is represented asjinwr. 

But what follows, I could wish (for the honour of 
modern Theology) that the method I have observed 
would permit me to pass over in silence. Now though 
deliberation and after-thought (says he) are not incident 
to God, yet, as God, in this ease, condescended (as you, 
say, and very truly) to act after the manner of men ; 
the same construction should be put upon his actions, as is 
usually put upon the actions of men in like cases. [Con- 
sid. pp. 155, 156.] That is, though deliberation and 
after-thought are not incident to God ; yet you are to 
understand his actions, as if they were incident. A horrid 
interpretation ! And yet his representation of the Com* 

N 4 mand 1 


mand, and his decent illustration of it, by a murderer in 
intention, will not suffer us to understand it in any other 
manner : For God, as if in haste, and before due delibe 
ration, is represented as commanding an immoral action ; 
yet again, as it were by an after-thought., ordering it to 
be fo reborn, by reason of its immorality. And in what 
is all this impious jargon founded? If you will believe 
him, in the principle I lay down, That God condescends 
to act after the manner of men. I have all along had 
occasion to complain of his misrepresenting my Prin 
ciples : but then they were Principles he disliked : arid 
this, the modern management of controversy has sancti 
fied. But here, though the Principle be approved, 
he cannot for his life forbear to misrepresent it : So bad 
a thing is an evil habit. Let me tell him, then, that by 
the principle of Gcd s condescending to act after the 
manner of men, is not meant, that he ever acts in com 
pliance to those vices and superstitions, which arise* from 
the depravity of human Will ; but in conformity only to 
men s indifferent manners and customs; and to those 
Usages which result only from the finite imperfections of 
thei. nature. Thus though, as in the case before us, God 
was pleased, in conformity to their mode of information, 
to use their custom of revoking a Command ; yet he 
never condescended to imitate (as our Examiner supposes) 
the irresolution, the repentance, and horrors of conscience 
of a, murderer in intention. Which (horrible to think!) 
is the parallel this orthodox Divine brings to illustrate 
the Command to Abraham. But he had read that God 
is sometimes said to repent ; and he thought, I suppose, 
it answered to that repentance which the stings of con 
science sometimes produce in bad men. Whereas it is 
gaid, in conformity to a good magistrate s or parent s 
correction of vice ; first, to threaten punishment ; and 
then, on the offender s amendment, to remit it. 

But he goes on without any signs of remorse. " Nor 
" will the Pagan fable of Dianas substituting a Hind 


" in the place of Iphigenia at all help your Unbeliever. 
" This did not, say they, OR YOU FOR THEM, make 
" idolaters believe that she therefore abhorred human 
" sacrifices. But do not they themselves, or have not 
" you assigned a very proper and sufficient reason why 
" it did not, viz. that they had been before persuaded 
" of the contrary? Where human sacrifices make a part 
<l of the settled standing Religion ; the refusal to accept 
" a human sacrifice in one instance may, indeed, be 
" rather looked upon as a particular indulgence, than as 
" a declaration against the thing in gross. But where 
" the thin*? was commanded but in one single instance, 
" and the command revoked in that very instance, (which 
" is our present case) such revocation, in all reasonable 
" construction, is as effectual a condemnation of the tiling, 
" as if God had told Abraham, in so many words, that 
" he delighted not in human sacrifices." [Consid. p. 161.] 
To come to our Examiner s half-buried sense, we arc 
often obliged to remove, or, what is still a more disagree 
able labour, to sift well, the rubbish of his words. Me 
3ays, the revocation \^as an effectual condemnation. This 
may either signify, That men, now free from the prejudices 
of Pagan superstition, may see that human sacrifices 
were condemned by the revocation of the Command : 
or, That Abraham s family could see this. In the first 
sense, I have nothing to do with his proposition ; and in 
the second, I shall take the liberty to say it is not true. 
I deny that the revocation was an effectual condemnation. 
With how good reason let the Reader now judge. 

Abraham, for the great ends of God s Providence, 
was called out of an idolatrous city, infected, as all such 
cities then were, with this horrid superstition. He was 
himself an Idolater, as appears from the words of Joshua, 
Your Fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old 
time, even Tenth the fat her of Abraham, and the fat her 
of Nachor : and TREY served other Gods. And I took 
your father Abraham, $c. God, in the act of calling 
* Josh. xxiv. 2, hi;n, 


him, instructed him in the Unity of his Nature, and the 
error of Polytheism ; as the great principle, for the sake 
of which (and to preserve it in one Family amidst an 
universal overflow of idolatry) he was called out. That 
he must be prejudiced in favour of his Country super 
stitions, is not to be doubted ; because it is of human 
nature to be so : and yet we find no particular instruction 
given him, concerning the superstition in question. The 
noble Author of the Characteristics observes, that " it 
" appears that he was under no extreme surprise on this 
" trying Revelation ; nor did he think of expostulating 
" in the least on this occasion ; when at another time 
" he could be so importunate for the pardon of an in- 
" hospitable, murderous, impious, and incestuous city:" 
Insinuating, that this kind of sacrifice was a thing he had 
been accustomed to. Now the noble Author observes 
this, upon the Examiner s, that is, the common, interpre 
tation. And I believe, on that footing, he, or a better 
writer, would find it difficult to take out the malicious 
sting of the observation. But I have shewn that it falls 
together with the common Interpretation. 

Well ; Abraham is now in the land of Canaan ; and 
again surrounded with the same idolatrous and inhuman 
Sacrificers. Here he receives the Command: And, on 
the point of execution, has the performance remitted to 
him as a FAVOUR ; a circumstance, in the revocation of 
the Command, which I must beg the Examiner s leave 
to remind him of, especially when I see him, at every 
turn, much disposed to forget it, that is, to pass it over in 
silence, without either owning or denying. And, indeed, 
the little support his reasoning has on any occasion, is 
only by keeping Truth out of sight But further, the 
favour was unaccompanied with any instruction concern- 
ing the moral nature of this kind of Sacrifice; a practice 
never positively forbidden but by the Law of Moses. 
Now, in this case, I would ask any candid Reader, the 
least acquainted with human nature ; whether Abraham 



and his Family, prejudiced as they were in favour of 
Human Sacrifices (the one, by his education in his 
country-Religion ; the other, by their communication 
with their Pagan neighbours, and, as appears by Scrip 
ture, but too apt of themselves, to fall into idolatry) 
would not be easily tempted to think as favourably of 
Human Sacrifices as those Pagans were, who understood 
that Diana required Iphigenia, though she accepted 
a Hind in her stead. And with such Readers, I finally 
leave it. 

P. 32. [O]. "Where are yeur Authorities for all 
" this? (says Dr. S tabbing.) You produce none. Where- 
" ever you had your Greek, I am very sure you had it 
" not from the New Testament, where these words 
" are used indiscriminately." [Consid. pp. 142, 143.] 
Where are your Authorities f you produce none. This 
is to insinuate, I had none to produce. He dares not, 
indeed, say so ; and in this I commend his prudence. 
However, thus far he is positive, that wherever I had my 
Greek, I had it not from the New Testament. The 
Gentleman is hard to please : Here he is offended that 
I had it not ; and, before, that I had it from the New 
Testament. Here 1 impose upon him ; there I trilled 
with him. But, in all this diversity of acceptance, it is 
still the same spirit : The spirit of Answering. 

I had said, the two Greek words, in their exact, 
signify so and so. Which surely implied an acknowledge 
ment, that this exactness was not always observed; 
especially by the Writers of the New Testament ; who, 
whatever some may have dreamed, did not pique them 
selves upon what we call, classical elegance. Now, this 
implication, our Examiner iahiy confirms, though, by 
way of confutation. In the New Testament (says he) 
these words are used indiscriminately. I had plainly 
insinuated as much ; and he had better have let it rest 
pn my acknowledgement ; for the instances he brings, to 



prove the words used indiscriminately in the New Testa 
ment, are full enough to persuade the Reader that they 
are not so used. His first instance is, i Pet. iv. 13. 
" Rejoice [%*4fc] inasmuch as ye are partakers of 
" Chrisfs sufferings ; that when his glory shall be re- 
" sealed Ix*?* ayahfauptni] ye may be glad u ilh 
" exceeding joy. See you not here (says lie) the direct. 
" reverse of what you say ; that ^/^w signifies the joy 
" which arises upon prospect, and ay*XX*ftty*&i< that whicli 
" arises from possession ?" [Consid. p. 143.] No indeed; 
I see nothing like it. The followers of Christ are bid 


fa rejoice, i x&($i. For what? For being partakers of 
Chris? s &tffermgs. And was not this a blessing in pos 
session? Ijiit it seems cur Doctor has but small concep 
tion how suffering for a good conscience can be a blessing. 
Yet at other he must have thought highly of it, 
\vhen, in excess of charity, he bespoke the Magistrate s 
application of it on his Neighbours, under the name of 
WHOLESOME SEVERITIES. He is just as wide of truth 
when he tells us, that dyax^oiopcu signifies the joy which 
arises on possession. They are bid to rejoice now in suf 
ferings, that they might be glad with exceeding joy at 
Christ s second coining. And is this the being glad for 
a good in possession ? Is it not for a good in prospect ? 
The reward they were then going to receive. For I 
suppose the appearance of Christ s glory will precede 
the reward of his followers. So that the Reader now 
sees, he has himself fairly, proved for me, the truth of 
.my observation, That in the exact use of the, zcord*, 
cLyu.\^*Qpxi signifies that tumultuous pleasure which 
ike certain expectation of an approaching blessing occa- 
tions; and ^//> that calm and settled Joy that arises 
from our knowledge, in the possession of it. 

He goes on. " Rev. xix. 7. Let us be glad and re- 
" joke [pci |>w/A* *} ayaAAiw/^0*] for the marriage of the 
" Lamb is come. Where both words (says he) refer to 
" blessings in possession. Again, Malt, v, 3 2, Rejoice 

" awf 


" and be exceeding glad[^^i\i ^ dya,\\i&<r$i}for great is 
" your reward in Heaven; where both refer to blessings in 
kC prospect." [Consid. pp. 143, 144.] His old fortune 
still pursues him. The first text from the Revelations, 
Be glad and rejoice, FOR the marriage of the Lamb /.v 
come; bids the followers of Christ now do that, which 
they were bid to prepare for, in the words of St. Peter, 
that when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad 
with exceeding joy. If, therefore, where they are bid to 
prepare for their rejoicing, the joy is for a good in pros 
pect (as we have shewn it was) then, certainly, where 
they are told that this time of rejoicing is come, the joy 
in list still be for a good in prospect. And yet he says, 
ihc words refer to blessings in possession. Again, the text 
from St. Matthew Rejoice and be exceeding glad, roit 
great is your reward in heaven, has tlte same relation 
to the former part of St. Peter s words [Rejoice Inasmuch 
//.y ye are jwrtakers of Christ" s sufferings] as the text in 
Revelation has to the latter. Blessed are ye (says Jesus 
in this gospel) ichen men shall revile you and persecute 
you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely 
for mil sake. Rtjoice, and be exceeding glad, FOR great 
is your racard in heaven. Rejoice ! tor what? Is it not 
for the persecutions they suffer for his sake ? A present 
blessing sure; though not perhaps to our Author s taste. 
The reason why they should rejoice, follows, for great 
is your reward in heaven. And yet here, he says, the 
words refer to blessings hi prospect. In truth, what led 
lii:n into all this inverted reasoning, was a pleasant mis 
take. The one text says Be glad and rejoice, FOR, on 
The other, Rejoice and be exceeding glad, FOR, or* Now 
he took the particle, in both places, to signify propter, 
for the sake of\ wliereas it signifies quoniam, qnia, and 
is in proof of something going before. So that he 
read the text Rejoice, for the marriage of the Lamb is 
come; As if it had been" Rejoice, for the marriage 
01 iiie Laiab, WHICH is come: . And rejoice, for 



great is your reward in heaven; as if it had been, 
" Rejoice for your ^reat reward in heaven." 

But now let us consider these texts in another view, in 
order to do justice to his delicacy of judgment. I had said 
that, in the exact use of the two Greek words, they 
signify so and so ; and applied that observation to a FACT ; 
where a person was said to have rejoiced, &$c. In order 
to disprove this criticism, he brings three passages, in which 
those Greek words are used, where NO FACT is related ; 
but where men are, in a rhetorical manner, called upon, 
and bid to rejoice, <$c. In \vhich latter case, the use of 
one word for another, is an elegant conversion. Those, 
in possession of a blessing, are bid to rejoice with that 
exceeding joy, which men generally have in the certain 
expectation of one approaching; and those in expecta 
tion, with that calm and settled joy, which attends full 
possession. And who but our Examiner could not see, 
that the use of words is one thing, in an historical 
assertion; and quite another, in a rhetorical invocation? 

Having thus ably acquitted himself in one criticism, 
he falls upon another. " What shall we do with SVa? " 
What indeed ! But no sooner said than done. " "lv& 
" (says he) is often put for on or ?T, positive as you are, 
" that it always refers to a future time." [Consid. p. 144.] 
Now, so far from being positive of this, I am positive of 
the contrary, that there is not one word of truth in all he 
says. I observed indeed, that JW Wu, in the text, refers 
only to a future time. And this I say still, though our 
Translators have rendered it, equivocally, to see. Yet he 
affirms, that I say, " IW [standing alone] always refers to 
" a future time." That I am positive of it, nay very 
positive, " positive as you are, 5 says he. And to shame 
rne of this evil habit, he proceeds to shew, from several 
texts, that 7v is often put for OT or on. " Thug John 
" xvi. 2. The time cometh THAT [*W] whosoever killeth 
" you will think he doth God service. Again: i Cor. iv. 3. 
" With me it is a small thing THAT [!w] / should be 
13 "judged 


" judged of you. And nearer to the point yet, 3 John 4. 
" I have no greater joy [1W a xsw] than THAT I hear, or, 
" than TO hear that my children walk in the truth. 
" And why not here, Sir ; Abraham rejoiced [7v* %] 
" WHEN he saw, or THAT he saw, or (which is equiva- 
" lent) TO SEE my Day." [Consid. p. 144.] For all this 
kindness, the best acknowledgement I can make, is to 
return him back his own criticism ; only the Greek words 
put into Latin. The Vulgate has rendered Tn by 
ut videret, which words I will suppose the Trans 
lator to say (as without doubt he would) refer only to a 
future time. On which, I will be very learned and 
critical: u Positive as you are, Sir, that ut always referji 
" to & future time, I will shew you that it is sometimes 
" put for postquam, the past. 

" Ut vidi, ut peril, ut me malus abstidit Error! 
" and sometimes (which is yet nearer to the point) for 
" quanto Ut quisque optimb Grace sciret, it a csse ne- 
" quissimum. And why not here, Sir, Abraham rejoiced 
" [lit rideret] WHEN HE saw, or THAT he saw, or which 
" is equivalent, TO SEE my day?" And now he says, 
there is but one difficulty that stands in his way. And what 
is this, I pray you? Why, that according to his (Dr. 
Stebbing s) interpretation, " the latter part of the sen- 
" tence is a repetition of the former. AbraJmm rejoiced 
" to see my day, and he saw it and was glad ; i. e. 
" Abraham rejoiced to see, and then saw and rejoiced. 
" Eut such kind of repetitions are frequent in the sacred 
" Dialect; and, in my humble opinion, it has an ele- 
" gance here. Abraham rejoiced to see, xai sufe, KK\ 

" ^api]. HE BOTH SAW AND WAS GLAD." \Cottsid. 

pp.144, 145.] Before he talked of repetitions in the- 
sacred Dialect, and pronounced upon their qualities, he 
should have known how to distinguish between a. pleonasm 
and a tautology ; the first of which, indeed, is often an 
elegance-, the latter, always a blemish in expression : and 
in the number of the latter, is this elegant repetition of 



the Doctor s own making. Where a repetition of the 
same thing is given in different words, it is called a pleo 
nasm , when in the same words (as in the Doctor s trans 
lation of the text in question) it is a tautology, which, 
being without reason, has neither grace nor elegance. 
Nay the very pretence it has to common sense arises 
from our being able to understand the equivocal phrase, 
to see, in my meaning, of, that he might sac. Confine it 
to the Doctor s, of Abraham rejoiced when he had seen 
my day ; ami hz saw it and was glad, and the absurdity 
becomes apparent For the latter part of the sentence 
beginning with the conjunction completive xal, it implies 
fi further predication. Yet in his translation there is none; 
though he makes an effort towards it, in dropping the 
sense of xl in the sound of BOTH. 

P. 32. [P]. Dr. Stebbing tells me, " there is not one 
" word, in the history of the Old Testament, to justify 
" this threefold distinction :" and that I myself CONFESS 
as much. It is true, I confess that what is not in the 
Old Testament is not to be found there. And had 
he been as modest, he would have been content to find a 
future state in the New Testament only. But where is 
it, I would ask, that " I confess there is not one word, 
" in the history of the Old Testament, to justify this 
" three-fold distinction?" I was so far from any such 
thought, that I gave a large epitome * of Abraham s 
whole history, to shew that it justified this three-fold 
distinction, in every part of it. His manner of proving 
my confession will clearly detect the fraud and falsehood 
of his charge. For, instead of doing it from iny own 
words, he would argue me into it, from his own infe 
rences. " You confess it (says he); FOR you say, that 
" Moses s history begins with the second period, and 
" that the first was wisely omitted by the historian. Let 
us apply this reasoning to a parallel case. I will sup- 

* From pp. 10 to 14, of this volume. 



pose him to tell me (ior, after this, he may tell me any 
thing) " that I myself confess there is not one word in 
" the Iliad of Homer, to justify me in saying that there 
<c were three periods in the destruction of Troy; the first, 
" the robbery of Helen ; the second, the combats before 
tf the Walls ; and the third, the storming of the Town 
" by the Greeks; FOR that I say, that Homer s poem 
" begins at the second period ; wisely omitting the first 
" and the last." Now will any one conclude, from this 
reasoning, that I had made any such confession ? 

P f 33. [Q]. This shews why GOD might say to Hosea, 
Go take unto thec a wife of whoredoms, <S$c. ch. i. ver. 2, 
Though all actions which have no moral import are 
indifferent ; yet some of this kind (which would even be 
indifferent, had they a moral import) may, on the very 
account of their having no moral import, be the object 
of pleasure or displeasure. Thus, in the adventure 
between Elisha and Joash, we are told, that the Pro 
phet said unto the King, " Take bow and arrows; and 
" he took upto him bow and arrows. And he said to 
" the king of Israel, Put thine hand upon the bow; and 
" he put his hand upon it ; and Elisha put his hands 
fe upon the king s hands. And he said, Open the window 
" eastward; and he opened it. Then Elisha said, Shoot ; 
" and he shot. And he said, The arrow of the Lord s 
" deliverance from Syria: for them shalt smite the Syrians 
" in Aphek, till thou have consumed them. And he said, 
" Take the arrows ; and he took them. And he said 
" unto the king of Israel, Smite upon the ground ; and 
" he smote thrice, and stayed. And the man of God 
" was wroth with him, and said, Thou shouidest have 
" smitten five or six times, then hadstthou smitten Syria, 
" till thou hadst consumed it : whereas now thou shalt 
" smite Syria but thrice." 2 Kings xiii. 15 19. Here 
Jt is not difficult to apprehend, that the Prophet, by God s 
command, directed the King to perform a significative 

VOL, VI, Q action, 


action, whose meaning GOD had beforehand explained to 
his Messenger : and, amongst the particulars of it, had 
told him this, that the Syrians should be smitten as often 
as the King smote upon the ground, when the Prophet 
should order him (only in general words) to smite it. Hence 
the Prophet s anger, occasioned by his love to his country, 
on the King s stopping when he had smote thrice. 

P. 33. [R.] To this Dr. Stebbing answers, " I can 
" easily understand, Sir, how the matter stood with 
" Abraham; and that HE was in no danger of being 
" misled, as to the nature of human Sacrifices, who knew 
" the secret of the whole affair; and that it was nothing 
" else but Scenery. But how this answer will serve for 
" his Family, who are to be presumed to have known 
" nothing of this scenical representation, is utterly past 
" my comprehension ; because you have told us from 
" the very first, that the information to be conveyed by 
" it was intended for Abraham s SOLE VJSE; and I do 
" not see how Abraham could open to his family the 
" scenery of the transaction, without explaining the 
" mystery. But is not your putting the Family of 
"" Abraham, in possession of this consequence, a very 
* plain declaration, that they knew the mystery of Christ s 
" sacrifice ? Now therefore, Sir, take your choice, and 
" give up one part of your hypothesis, or the other, as 
" best pleases you; for to hold both is imposible. If you 
" say that the family of Abraham were acquainted with 
" the mystery of Christ s sacrifice ; it will overturn all 
" you have said concerning their ignorance of a future 
" state : It likewise overturns the single reason you have 
" given why the explanation (usual in all such cases) to 
" shew the import of the transaction was not added, viz. 
" that it was a point not fit for common knowledge. 
" But if you shall chuse to say, that the revelation of 
" this mystery was for the SOLE information of Abraham, 
" and that his family knew nothing of it, the objection 
" will lie full against you, unanswered." [Consid. p. 166.] 

I had 


I had said, that the command was for Abraham s sole 
use; and " therefore (says the Doctor) the Family of 
" Abraham must be presumed to know nothing of this 
" scenical representation :" Notwithstanding this, I pre 
sume (he says) that they did know it. Here he takes me 
in a flagrant contradiction. But did he indeed not appre 
hend that where I spoke of its being given for Abraham s 
sole use, I was opposing it (as the course of my argu 
ment required) not to the s .ngle family which THEN 
lived under his tents, but to the Jewish People, WHEN 
the history of the transaction was recorded ? And now 
having shewn his wrong conclusion from MY words, let 
us consider next the wrong conclusion he draws from 
HIS OWN. I do not see (says he) how Abraham could 
open to his family the scenery of the transaction, without 
explaining tlie mystery. What does he mean by, opening 
the scenery of the transaction ? There are two senses of 
this ambiguous expression ; it may signify, either, ex 
plaining t/w moral of the scenery ; or simply, telling his 
family that the transaction was a scenical representation. 
He could not use the phrase in the iirst sense, because 
he makes explaining the mystery a thing different from 
opening the scenery. He must mean it then in the 
latter. But could not Abraham tell his Family, that this 
was a scenical representation, without explaining the 
mystery ? I do not know what should hinder him, unless 
it was the sudden loss of speech. If he had the free use 
of his tongue, I think, he might, ii) the transports of his 
joy, on his return home, tell his Wife, " That God had 
ordered him to sacrifice his Son, and that lie had carried 
this Son to mount Moriah, in obedience to the divine 
Command, where a ram was accepted in his stead ; but 
that the whole was a mere scenical representation, to 
figure out a mysterious transaction which God had 
.ordained to come to pass in the latter ages pf the world/ 
And I suppose when he had once toid his wife, the 
would soon hear of it, Npw could they riot 
O 2 ^derstand. 


understand, what was meant by a scenical representation, 
as well when he told them it was to prefigure a mystery, 
as if he had told them it was to prefigure the crucifixion 
of Jesus? Had I no other way of avoiding his dilemma 
(for if I escape his Contradiction, he has set his Dilemma- 
trap, which he says it is impossible I should escape) had 
I nothing else, I say, it is very likely I should have in 
sisted upon this explanation : But there are more safe 
ways than one of taking him by his Horns. " Now 
" therefore (says he) take your choice, and give up one 
Ci part of your hypothesis or the other, as best pleases 
" say that the family of Abraham were acquainted with 
" the Mystery, it will overturn all you said concerning 
" their ignorance of a Future State But if you shall 
" chuse to say that the revelation of the Mystery was for 
" the sole information of Abraham, and that his Family 
" knew nothing of it, then the construction in favour 
" of human Sacrifices must have been the very same as 
" if no such representation, as you speak of, had been 
" intended." I desire to know where it is that I have 
spoken AN Y THING of the ignorance of Abrahams Family 
concerning a Future State. But I am afraid, something 
is wrong here again : and that, by Abrahams Family, he 
means the Israelites under Moses s policy : for, with 
regard to them, I did indeed say that the gross body of 
the People were ignorant of a Future State. But then 
I supposed them equally ignorant of the true import 
of the Command to Abraham. But if by Abraham s 
Family he means, as every man does, who means honestly, 
those few of his houshold, I suppose them indeed 
acquainted with the true import of the Command; but 
then, at the same time, not ignorant of a future State. 
Thus it appears that what our Examiner had pronounced 
IMPOSSIBLE, was all the while very possible. And in 
spite of this terrible Dilemma, both parts of the hypo 
thesis are at peace, I can hardly think him so immoral 



as to have put a designed trick upon his Reader : I rather 
suppose it to be some confused notion concerning the 
Popish virtue of TRADITION (that trusty Guardian of 
Truth) which led him into all this absurdity : and made 
him conclude, that what Abraham s houshold once knew, 
the Posterity of Abraham could never forget. Though the 
WRITTEN WORD tells us, that when Moses was sent to 
redeem this Posterity from bondage, they remembered so 
little of God s Revelations to their Forefathers, that they 
knew nothing even of his NATURE, and therefore did, 
as men commonly do in the like case, enquire after his 

P- 37- [$] " To me (says the noble writer) it plainly 
" appears, that in the early times of all Religions, when 
" nations were yet barbarous and savage, there was ever 
" an aptness or tendency towards the dark part of Super- 
" stition, which, amongst many other horrors, produced 
" that of human Sacrifice. Something of this nature 
" might possibly be deduced even from Holy Writ." 
To this a note refers in the following words Gen. xxii. J . 
and Judg. xi. 30. These places relating to Abraham and 
Jephthah are cited only with respect to the notion which 
these primitive warriors may be said to have entertained 
concerning this horrid enormity., so common amongst the 
inhabitants of the Palestine and other neighbouring 
nations. It appears that even the elder of these Hebrew 
princes was under no extreme surprise on this trying re 
velation. Nor did he think of expostulating, in the least > 
on this occasion ; when at another time he could be so im 
portunate for the pardon of an inhospitable, murderous, 
impious and incestuous city, Gen. xviii. 23, c* Charact. 
vol. iii. p. 1 24, 

Dr. Stebbing will needs try his strength with the noble 
Author of the Characteristics. For, whether I quote for 
approbation or condemnation, it is all one ; this active 
Watchman of Ihe Church militant will let nothing escape 



him, that he finds in my service ; nor leave any thing 
unpuriiied that has once passed through my hands. To 
this passage of the noble Lord he replies, " The cases 
" widely differ. God did not open precisely what he 
" intended to do with these wicked cities ; only said, 
" Judgement was passed. But what has this to do with 
" Isaac, who did not stand as a sinner before God ; but 
" as a Sacrifice, acknowledging God s sovereign domi- 
" nion. For Abraham to intercede here would have 
" inferred a reluctancy to do homage, which would have 
" destroyed the perfection of his resignation." [Hist, 
of Abr. pp. 41, 42.] So, Isaac s innocence, and his 
not standing a sinner before God when he was doomed to 
death, makes him a less proper object of Abraham s 
intercession and compassion, than a devoted City, inhos 
pitable, murderous, impious, and incestuous. This is our 
Doctor s HUMANITY : and a modest petition of the 
Father of the faithful, like that of the Saviour of the 
world, If it be possible, let this cup pass from me, never- 
theless not as I will but as thou wilt, would have destroyed 
all the perfection of his resignation. And this is our 
Doctor s DIVINITY ! Strange! that this Father of Ortho 
doxy could not see, that what might be done by the 
divine Antitype himself, without destroying his perfection 
of resignation, might likewise be done, without that loss, 
in behalf of the Type. After so fine a specimen of what 
great things he is able to do against this formidable Enemy 
of Revelation ; what pity is it, he was never set on work 
by his Superiors, in a more avowed and open manner ! 

P. 43. [T]. This man, not long since, wrote against 
the D. L. under the name of a Society of Free-thinkers : 
by the same kind of figure, 1 suppose, that He in the 
Gospel called himself Legion, who was only the for- 
wardest Devil of the Crew. 

P. 43. [U]. But I mistake. Unbelievers, I think, 

are not yet quite so shameless. The objection, in form, 

2 comes 


comes from another quarter. It is Dr. Stebbing, who, 
for the honour of the Church, makes it for them. He 
will not allow that the words of Jesus are of any validity 
to support my interpretation of the Command to Abraham, 
because Unbelievers will not admit the inspiration of the 
New Testament. But what then? they have not yet 
disputed with me my interpretation of the Command. 
Nobody hath done this but Dr. Stebbing. And I hope 
the Authority of Jesus will stand good against him. He 
was in haste to do their business for them : and, it must 
be confessed, by an argument that does equal credit to 
his logic and his piety. 

Fair reasoners of all parties will see, tho Dr. Stebbing 
will not, that the question is not particular, concerning 
the inspiration of the Old and New Testament; but 
general, of the connexion between them ; and those will 
not be so unreasonable to expect I should prove this con 
nexion, of which they ask a proof, any otherwise than by 
applying each reciprocally to explain and to support the 
other. If the two Testaments be shewn to do this; 
while on the other hand, when singly considered, and 
without each other s mutual assistance, they are in 
explicable, the connexion between them is fairly made 
out. The objection of Unbelievers stands thus. " You 
pretend (say they) that these two Dispensations are two 
constituent parts of God s great moral economy : If this 
be true, they must needs have a strong connexion and 
real relation to one another. Shew us this connexion 
and relation : and amuse us no longer with proving the 
divinity of this or that Dispensation separately, as if each 
were independent on the other." I comply with their 
demand : And now Dr. Stebbing tells me, I take this qr 
that Revelation for granted which I should have proved. 
Whereas in truth I take nothing for granted but what 
Unbelievers are ready to prove against me, if I did not : 
namely, that between two Dispensations, the one pre 
tended to be preparatory to the other, there must needs 

04 be 


be a strong and near connexion and relation. And if, in 
the course of evincing this connexion, I urge some circum 
stances in the Jewish to support the Christian, and others 
in the Christian to support the Jewish, this, I suppose, 
is not taking for granted the truth either of one or the 
other, but proving the divinity of both. 

P. 49. [X]. Hence we see the vanity of Mr. Whiston s 
distinction, who is for retaining Types (necessitated there 
unto by the express declarations of Holy Writ) and for 
rejecting double senses. " Mr. Whiston (says the author 
" of the Grounds, 8$c.) justifies typical arguing from 
" the ritual laws of Moses, and from passages oj History 
" in the Old Testament. Indeed he pretends this last 
" to be quite another thing from the odd (typical) appli* 
" cation of prophecies. For (says he) the ancient cere* 
" monial institutions were, as to their principal branches, 
" at least in their own nature, Types and shadows of 
" future good things But the case of the ancient pro- 
61 phecies to be alleged from the old Scriptures for the 
" confirmation of Christianity is quite of another nature, 
61 andofamore nice andexact consideration" pp.227,228. 
It appears, indeed, they are of a more nice and exact 
consideration, even from Mr. Whiston s so much mis 
taking them, as to suppose they are of a nature quite 
different from Types. But instead of telling us honestly 
that he knew not w r hat to make of them, he plays the 
courtier, and dismisses them, for a more nice and exact 

P. 5 1 . [ Y]. The Bishop of London, in his Discourses 
vn the Use and Intent of Prophecy, seemed to have but 
a slender idea of this use when he wrote as follows 
" There was no occasion (says he) to lay in so long 
<c beforehand the evidence of prophecy, to convince men 
" of things that were to happen in their own times : and 
" it gives us a low idea of the administration of Provi- 
c< dence in sending Prophets one after another in every 

" age 


" age from Adam to Christ, to imagine that all this ap- 
" paratus was for their sakes who lived IN OR AFTER 
" the times of Christ." p. 37. But such is the way of 
these Writers who have a favourite doctrine to inforce. 
The truth of that doctrine (if it happen to be a truth) is 
supported at the expence of all others. Thus his Lord 
ship, setting himself to prove that Prophecy was given 
principally to support the Faith and Religion of the 
World, thought he could not sufficiently secure his point 
without weakening and discrediting another of, at least, 
equal importance, That it was given to afford testimony 
to the mission of Jesus. 

P. 55. [Z]. This account of Types and secondary 
senses, which supposes they were intended to conceal the 
doctrines delivered under them, is so very natural, and, 
as would seem, reasonable, that Dr. Stebbing himself 
subscribes to it. And hence occasion has been taken by 
a most acute and able Writer to expose his prevarication, 
in maintaining that the Jews had the revealed Doctrine 
of a Future State : For the Doctor not only confesses 
that the Doctrine was revealed under Types, but that 
Doctrines, thus conveyed, were purposely secreted from 
the knowledge of the ancient Jews. See the Argument 
of the Divine Legation fairly stated, p. 1 25. And, the 
free and candid Examination cf Bishop Sherlock s Ser 
mons, &c. chap. ii. where the controversy on this point is 
fairly determined, as far as truth and reason can deter 
mine any thing. 

P. 70. [A A]. Hear what a very judicious Critic 
observes of the line in question. " The comment of 
" SERVIUS on this line is remarkable. Hunc versum 
" not ant Critici, quasi superfine et inutiliter additum, 
" nee convenient em gravitati ejus, namque est magis 
" neotericus. Mr. ADD i SON conceived of it in the 
" same manner when he said, this was the only witty 
" line in the JEneis] meaning such a line as Ovid would 

" have 


" have written. We see they esteemed it a wanton play 
" of fancy, unbecoming the dignity of the Writer s work, 
and the gravity of his character. They took it, in 
" short, for a mere modern flourish, totally different from 
" the pure unaffected manner of genuine antiquity. And 
" thus far they unquestionably judged right. Their 
" defect was in not seeing that the use of it, as here 
" employed by the Poet, was an exception to the general 
" rule. But to have seen this was not, perhaps, to be 
" expected even from these Critics, However, from 
" this want of penetration arose a difficulty in deter- 
" mining whether to resA facia or fata nepotum. And 
" as we now understand that Screws and his Critics 
" were utter strangers to Virgil s noble idea, it is no 
" wonder they could not resolve it. But the latter is the 
" Poet s own word. He considered this shield of 
" celestial make as a kind of Palladium, like the ANCILE 
" which fell from Heaven, and used to be carried in 
" procession on the shoulders of the SALII, Quid de 
" scutis (says Lactantius)^^ reinstate putridis dicam ? 
" suis arbitrantur. [Div. Inst. lib. i. c. 21.] Virgil, in 
" a fine flight of imagination, alludes to this venerable 
" ceremony, comparing, as it were, the shield of his hero 
" to the sacred ANCILE; and, in conformity to the 
" practice in that sacred procession, represents his hero 
" in the priestly office of religion, 

At fattens H u M E RO famamque et FATA Nepotum. 

This idea then, of the sacred shield, the guard and 
glory of Rome, and on which, in this advanced situation, 
" depended the fame and fortune of his country, the 
c Poet with extreme elegance and sublimity tranfers to 
4 the shield which guarded their great Progenitor, while 
c he was laying the first foundations of the Roman 
" Empire." Mr. HURD Notes on the Epistle to 
Augustus, pp. 68, 69. 3d ed. 

p. 7 6. 



P. 76. [BB]. The Reader sees, however, by this, 
that he at length takes ALLEGORIES and SECONDARY 
SENSES not to be the same: In which, I must crave leave 
to tell him, he is mistaken ; Religious allegories (the only 
allegories in question) being no other than a species of 
secondary senses. This may be news to our Critic, 
though he has written and printed so much about ALLE 
GORIES, that is, about secondary senses-, as Monsieur 
Jordan was surprised to find he had talked prose all his 
lifetime, without knowing it. 

P. 77. [CC]. Dr. Stebbing, of this SOME (by one of 
his arts of controversy) has made ALL. And charges 
me * with giving this as the character of double prophecies 
in general, that without Miracles in their conformation 
they could hardly have the sense contended for well 
ascertained. On the contrary, he assures his reader that 
no Prophecy can have its sense supported by Miracles. 
That part which relates to the Morality of the Doctor s 
conduct in this matter, I shall leave to himself: with his 
Logic I have something more to say. The Miracles, 
which the Reader plainly sees I meant, were those 
worked by Jesus; and the Prophecies, some of those 
which Jesus quoted, as relating to himself. But the 
Doctor tells us, "That Miracles are not to be taken for 
" granted in our disputes with Unbelievers." In some 
of our disputes with Unbelievers, they are not to be taken 
for granted ; in some they are. When the dispute is, 
whether the truth of Jesus Mission appear from Miracles, 
it would be absurd to take Miracles for granted : but 
when the dispute is, whether the truth of his Messiah- 
character appear from Prophecies, there is no absurdity 
in taking his Miracles for granted ; because an unbeliever 
may deny his Messiah-character, which arises from 
Prophecies, and yet acknowledge this Mission which is 
proved by Miracles ; .but he cannot deny the truth of his 
* See Hist, of Abr. pp. 6 1, 62, 63, &c. 



mission, which is proved by Miracles, and yet acknow 
ledge his Miracles. But more than this An Unbeliever 
not only may allow us to suppose the truth of Miracles 
when the question is about the proof of the Messiah-cha 
racter from Prophecies ; but the Unbeliever, with whom 
I had here to do, Mr. Collins, does actually allow us, in 
our dispute with him, to suppose the truth of Miracles : 
For thus he argues, " Jesus, you say, has proved his 
Mission by Miracles. In good time. But he had another 
Character to support, that of a promised Messiah, for 
which he appeals to the Prophecies : Now, 1st, these 
Prophecies relate not to him, but to another. And 
2dly, Miracles never can make that relate to him which 
relate to another.* In answer to this, I proposed to 
shew, that the first proposition was absolutely false, and 
that the second very much wanted to be qualified. In 
the course of this dispute, I had occasion to urge the 
evidence of Miracles ; and Mr. Collins, while denying 
the Messiah-character, had permitted me to suppose 
their truth. Unluckily, the Doctor, who saw nothing 
of all this, takes what Logicians call the point assumed, 
and the point to be proved, for one and the same thing. 
That Jesus was a divine Messenger, and worked Mira 
cles, is the point assumed by me ; and Mr. Collins, over 
confident of his cause, permitted me to assume it. That 
Jesus was the Messiah foretold, is the point to be proved] 
and I did not expect that any other than a follower of 
Mr. Collins would deny I had proved it. But I will be 
fair even with so unfair an Adversary as Dr. Stebbing, 
and urge his cause with an advantage with which I will 
suppose he would have urged it himself had he known 
how. It may be questioned whether it be strictly logical 
to employ this topic (which Mr. Collins allows us to 
assume) of Jesus s divine Mission, in order to prove his 
Messiahship ? Now all that can be here objected is, that 
we assume one Character, in order to prove another, in 
the same divine Person. And what is there illogical 



in this ? Who ever objected to the force of that reasoning 
against Lord Bolingbroke, which from the Attributes of 
God s power and wisdom which his Lordship allowed the 
Author of the View of his Philosophy to assume, inferred 
and proved God s justice and goodness, which his Lord 
ship denied ? 

But to satisfy, not the Doctor, but any more reasonable 
man, I will suppose, it may be asked, " Of what use are 
Prophecies thus circumstanced, that is to say, such as 
require the evidence of Miracles to ascertain their sense?" 
I reply, of very important use ; as they open and reveal 
more clearly the mutual dependency and connexion of 
the two Dispensations on one another, in many particulars 
which would otherwise have escaped our notice : And, 
by this means, strengthen several additional proofs of the 
Messiahship of Jesus, on which the Gospel doctrine of 
Redemption depends. But was there no more in it than 
this, The rescuing some prophecies quoted in the New 
Testament as relating to Jesus, out of the hands of 
Unbelievers, who have taken an occasion, from their 
generality or obscurity, to persuade the people that they 
relate entirely to another matter ; this, I say, would be 
n less than clearing the truth of the Messiahship from 
inextricable difficulties. I will now take a final leave 
of this Answerer by profession ; an Answerer of such 
eminence, that he may indeed be called, 

Knight of the Shire, who represents them all. 
But as he displays at parting all the effrontery of his 
miserable trade, I will just stop to new-burnish his com 

I had called my Argument a Demonstration, which 
one would think no one who could distinguish Morals 
from Physics could mistake, or would venture to mis 
represent. Yet hear Dr. Stebbings last words, "That 
" Moses was the Legislator of the Jews, and that the 
" Jews were ignorant of a Future State ; these facts 
[ must be known by history, which spoils you fora 

" Demonstrator 


" Demonstrator at once : For historical evidence goes 
" no further than probability ; and if this must concur 
" to make up the evidence, it cannot be a Demonstration ; 
" For Demonstration cannot stand upon probability. 
cc The evidence may be good and sufficient, but Demon- 
" stration it cannot be ; which is always founded upon 
" self-evident truths, and is carried on by a chain or series 
" of the most simple ideas hanging upon each other by 
" a necessary connexion" [Letter to the Dean of Bristol, 
pp. 9, 10.] And was it for this, that this wonderful man 
hath written half a score Pamphlets against the Divine 
Legation, that he could not find in it the same sort of 
Demonstration which he hath been told may be seen in 
Euclid ? 

P. 87. [DD]. Nothing can be more simple than the 
principle here inforced, or more agreeable to the rules of 
just interpretation, than to suppose, that the Language 
of the Law, in the terms ALTAR, SACRIFICE, &c. is 
employed to convey these prophetic intimations of the 
Gospel. The ancient fathers of the Church very impro^ 
yidentty continued the use of these terms, when speaking 
of the Christian Rites : . For though they used them, and 
professed to use them metaphorically, yet it gave counte 
nance to strange extravagance of Scripture-interpretation 
amongst the Romanists. The ingenious Author of the 
Principes de lafoi Chretienne, Tom. i. p. 273. brings this 
prophecy of Malachi for a proof of the divine institution 
of the sacrifice of the Mass. 

P. 96. [EE]. It is wonderful to consider how little 
the Writers, on either side the question, have understood 
4of the logical propriety and moral fitness of Types, and 
secondary senses of Prophecy. 

Dr. Middlcton and Dr. Sykes, who agreed with Mr. 
Collins in laughing at these modes of information,, agreed 
with him likewise, in laying down such principles, and 
inculcating such ideas of the Mosaic Religion, as most 



effectually tended to evince this logical propriety and 
moral fitness. 

On the other hand, Bishop Sherlock, Dr. Stcbbing, 
and other advocates for Types and secondary senses 
of Prophecy, lay down such principles, and inculcate 
such ideas of the Mosaic Religion, as would totally 
supersede the use of these modes of information, and 
consequently destroy both their logical propriety and 
moral jitness. See the Free and candid Examination of 
Bishop Sherlock s Principles, &c. chap. ii. 

P. 103. [FF]. M. BOUILLER, the ingenious Author 
of the Court Examen de la These de Mr. L Abbe de 
PR A DES, et Observations sur son Apologie, having 
charged de Prades with taking his idea of the Mosaic 
Economy from this Work, without owning it, goes on, 
in his own way, to shew that the ARGUMENT of the 
Divine Legation, as delivered in these Volumes, is 

" La Loi Mosa ique, consideree comtne fonde- 

ment d un etablissement national et temporal, rfavoit 
que des promesses et des menaces, ne proposoit que des 
peines des recompenses temporelles : aulieu qu a con- 
siderer les grandes VUGS de cet etablissement, par rapport 
& I Eglise meme, la Loi etoit une espece de tableau 
emblematique, qui sous i enveloppe des objets charnels 
Jiguroit les spirituels , ewsoite que, en raisonnant selou 
les principes d une juste analogic, la foi des Israelites 
eclaires et pieux, trouvoit -dans les promesses de la I.oi, 
qui portoietit uniquemeut mr les biens presens, mi nouv^ a.u 
garand de la certitude des biens avenir. Alais comme 
on doit bien se souvenir, que dans cette Nation, les 
Fkleks ne faisoient QUE LE PETIT NO MB RE, I" argument 
de WARBURTON, tire du silence de la Loi sur une 
economic avcnir, en faveur de la divinite de *ceUe Loi 
meme, conserve tmtte sa force, car il demeure Jtoujours 
vrai qu iln a pas fallu oioins que la vertu des MIRACLES 



et 1 efficace d une impression surnaturelle, pour faire 
ployer le gross de la Nation, c est-a-dire les Juifs charnels, 
qui ne penetroient point ces vues Mysterieuses > sous le 
joug pesant de la Dispensation Mosai que." [pp. 94, 95.] 
And again, " Ce double Caractere de la Dispensation 
Mosai que met sa divinite hors d atteinte a tous les traits 
les plus envenimes du Deisme qui I attaque par deux 
batteries opposees. Quoi? disent nos Libertins, une 
Religion qui promet uniquement les biens de la Terre, 
peut-elle tre digne de Dieu ! Et lorsque, pour leur 
repondre, ayant recours au sens mystique, on dit que leg 
promesses Legales qui, prises a la lettre, n offrent qu un 
bonheur temporal, doivent s entendre spirituellement ; 
ces Messieurs se retournent aussi-tot avec une merveil- 
leuse adresse pour vous demander comment un Oracle, 
qui trompe les hoinmes, et qui n a point d accomplisse- 
ment dans le sens le plus clair, le plus propre, et le plus 
litteral de ce qu il promet, peut etre regard e comme un 
Oracle divin ? Question, qui dans Thypothese commune, 
me paroit plus difficile a resoudre d une facon satisfaisante. 
Mais Tune et 1 autre objection tombe, des qu on envisage 
1 ancienne economic telle qu elle est ; c est-&-dire, tout a 
la fois comme Alliance nationale et comme economic 
religieuse. En qualite d Alliance nationale, ses pro- 
messes sont toutes Charnelles, et s accomplissent a la 
terre a 1 egard des Juifs. Mais en qualite d economic 
religieuse, essentielkment li&e au plan de rEvangile, elle 
est pour \esFideles, la figure etle gage des biens spirituels. 
Doublement digne du Dieu de verite, et par t accomplissz- 
ment litteral de ses promesses, et par leur usage ty pique, 
la reunion de ces deux rapports y annonce Fouvrage de 
son infinie sagesse." [Addition a Article iv. p. 1 04.] 

Thus far this ingenious Writer. But now a difficulty 
will occur. He owns the Author of the Divine Legation 
hath made out his point, that the Law of Moses is from 
God : He contends that the Author s system is the only 
one that can support this Revelation against the ob 


jections of Deists and Libertines : Yet when he has done 
this, he has thought fit to call this very system, a Para 
dox ; though it goes upon his own principle, That the 
Mosaic Dispensation had a double character ; that it was 
a national Alliance, and was at the same time essentially 
united to the Gospel plan ; that this double Character, 
though not apprehended by the body of the Jewish People, 
yet was well understood by those peculiarly favoured of 
God, their Prophets, and Leaders. This censure, if it 
be intended for one, I say, appears to me a little myste 
rious. However, the learned Writer s words are these 
" Quand Mr. de Prades a dit que Tceconomie Mosai que 
n etoit fondee que sur les peines et les recompenses 
temporelles, etqu il a sou ten u que cela me me tburnit une 
bonne preuve de la divinite de cette (Economic, il n a 
fait autre chose que suivre la trace du savant IVarburton, 
qui avanca ce PARADOXE, il y a deja quelques annees, 
dans son fameux Ouvrage de la Divine Legation de 
Moise, et employa tour a tour pour le defendre, le rai- 
sonnement et Ferudition. Notre Bachelier, aussi-bien 
que M. Hooke, qu il cite pour son garand, auroient bien 
du faire honneur a 1 illustre Docteur Anglois, d une 
pensee que personne ne doutera qu ils n ayent puisee 
chez lui." [p. 88.] No\v, I have so good opinion of this 
learned Writer s candour as to believe that either he used 
the word paradox in an indifferent sense, or that he was 
misled in his Judgment of the Divine Legation by 
Mr. de Prades and Mr. Hooke : Who although they 
borrowed what they have delivered concerning the nature 
of the Mosaic Economy from that book, which they did 
not think fit to confess, yet it is as certain that what they 
borrowed they either did not understand, or at least have 
misrepresented. The learned Sorbonist has since pub 
lished his Course of Theology, infilled lleUgionisnaturaUs 
et revelattz Principia. In which, though he has con 
sulted his ease and perhaps his reputation, in transcribing 
the reasonings of the Divine Legation on various points 
VOL. VI. P of 

no THE 1)1 VINE LEGATION, &c. [Book 

of Theology, and generally without reference to the 
Book or the Author ; yet his affairs with his Body haver 
taught him caution, and obliged him to declare against 
the PROPOSITION., in. support of which, those reasonings 
were employed by their original Author. For when he 
comes to the question concerning the sanction of the 
Jcu ixh Laze, he introduces it in the following manner *. 
Q-usestionem inchoamus difficilem, in qua explicanda 
adhibenda est sum-ma verborum proprietas, ne Pclagranis 
ex uiia parte non satis feed us Mosaicum Evmigelicum 
discriminantibus, aut contrariis RKCEN^IORUM QUORUM- 
DAM erroribus favere videamur. And so, fortifies him 
self with Suarez and St. Thomas. The consequence of 
which is, that the two large Chapters in his second Volume 
(the first, To prove that a future state was always a 
popular doctrine amongst the Jews ; and the second. 
That temporal rewards and punishments were really and 
equally distributed amongst them under the Theocracy) 
just serve to confute one another : Or more properly, 
the second Chapter, by aid of the Arguments taken from 
the Divine Legation, effectually overturns all that he has 
advanced in the first. See 3\t Hooke s second volume 
of his Course, intitlecl, Rdtgioms natundls et rcc elates 
Principle/, from pp. 208 to 236.. For the rest, this jus* 
tice is due to the learned and ingenious Writer, that these 
Principles of natural and revealed Religion compose the 
best reasoned Work in defence of Revelation which we- 
have yet seen come from that quarter. 










Printed, so far as it goes, by the AUTHOR; 
and left unfinished : 


P 2 


INTRODUCTION to the Ninth Book. 

Book IX, Chaps. I.II.III.IV.V.& VI. With NOTES, 

%5~- THE Reader has been already referred to an Explanation of the omission 
of Books VII. & VIII. And lest, in the preceding Title page to the IXth Book, 
the words "left unfinished" might operate to the prejudice of this division of 
the work, it may be proper to repeat here a few words from Bishop HVUD S 
introductory Discourse : " This IXth Book is the noblest effort that has hitherto 
" been made to give a RATIONALE OF CHIUSTIANITY . . . Very little is 
" wanting to complete the Author s design ; only what he had proposed 
" to say on the apocatyptic prophecies, and which may be supplied from th* 
" Discourse on Antichrist." Sec Vol. I. f this Edit. pp. 86. 89. Ed, 

t 213 j 






TRUTH, the great Object of all honest as well as 
rational Inquiries, had been long sought for in vain ; 
when, the Search now become desperate, after the fruit 
less toil of the best qualified Sages, and of the most im 
proved times, She suddenly appeared in PERSON to put 
these benighted Wanderers in their Way. I AM THE 
TRUTH, says the Saviour of the World. This was his 
Moral Nature; of more concern for us to know, than 
his Physical ; and, on that account, explained more at 
large in his eternal Gospel. 

This last book, therefore, being an attempt to explain 
RELIGION ; I shall, 

1 . First of all, previously examine those sceptical Ob 
jections, which in the long absence of Truth, the World 
had begun to entertain of her very Being and existence ; 
or at least of our capacity to discover, and get hold of 
her. And these being removed, 

2. I shall, in the second place, lay down, under what 
laws, and with what disposition of mind, I have ventured 
to use the aids of REASON to explain the TRUTHS OF 

3. And, lastly, I shall attempt to remove the Preju 
dices which may arise against any new discoveries in 
support of REVELATION, which the method here em- 

* See Sermon, concerning The Nature and Condition of Truth ; 
Serin. J. Vol. IX. of this Edit. 



ployed to analyse that capital truth of all, THE FAITH, 
may possibly enable us to make. 


That ancient Remedy against Error, #,f$rrkonian, or, 
if you like it better, an Academic SCEPTICISM, only 
added one more disorder to the human Mind ; but being 
the last of its misbegotten issue, it became as is usual, 
the favourite of its Parent. 

Our Blessed MASTER, himself was the first to en 
counter its attacks, and the insolence of that School has 
kept the" Church in breath ever since. 

When Jesus was carried before Pilate as a Criminal of 
State, for calling himself King of the Jews, he tried to 
shorten the intended process by pleading that his Kingdom 
was not of- this JVvrld. But Pilate, alarmed at the 
names of king and kingdom, asked, Art thou a King 
then? The other replied, --For this cause came I into the 
World) thai I should bear Witness unto the TRUTH, 
Pilate saith unto him, WHAT is TRUTH? And ichcn he 
had said this, he went oat again *. For when he found 
that the Kingdom claimed by the supposed Criminal, was 
a Kingdom merely Spiritual, or, in the Roman Governor s 
conceit, a Kingdom only in idea, he considered the claim 
as no proper subject of the civil tribunal. So far he 
acted well, and suitably to his public Character. But 
when he discovered his indifference to, or rather con-* 
tempt of, TRUTH, when offered to be laid before him as 
a private Man, -by -one who, he knew, had the repute of 
exercising every superior Power proper to enforce it, he 
appears, to me, in a light much less excusable. 

The negligent air of his insulting question will hardly 
admit of an Apology." You tell me (says he) of 
" TRUTH, a word in the mouth of every Leader and 
" Follower of a SECT ; who all agree (though in nothing 
" else) to give that name to their own Opinions : While 
" TRUTH, if, indeed, we allow of its existence, still 
" wanders at large, and in disguise. Nor does the De- 
" tcction seem worth the Pains of the Search, since 
" those things which Nature intended for general use 
" she made plain and obvious, and within the reach of 
" all men/ 1 

* John xviii. 38. 



Sentiments like these bespoke the Ruler of an Asiatic 
Province, who had heard so much of TRUTH in the 
Schools of Philosophy ; and had heard of it to so little 
purpose. Tins corrupt Governor, .therefore, finding a 
Jewish Sage talk of bearing Jl ittiefifi to the Truth, (the 
aiibcted office of the Grecian Sophists), was ready to 
conclude that Jesus was one of their mimic .Followers. 
For it was now become fashionable amongst the learned 
Rabbins to inlist themselves into one or other of those 
celebrated Schools. Thus the famous Philo was an out 
rageous PLATO^IST : And Jesus -calling himself a 
&NG, together with the known Purity and Severity of his 
Morals, probably made Pilate consider him as one of the 
STOICAL \dsc men, who alone was free, and happy, and 
a King. 

" Liber, honoratus, pulcher, REX denique Rcgum." 

Xow, as on the one hand, the Character of the Greek 
Philosophy, which was of an abstract nature, and seques 
tered froiii civil business, made Pilate conclude, that these 
Claims of Jesus had nothing in them dangerous or alarm 
ing ; so, on the other hand, its endless disputes and 
.quarrtls about TUUTH, and which of the Sects had her 
in keeping, made ?,Ien of the World, and .especially those 
in public Stations, whose practice declined the test of any 
moral System whatsoever, willing to Iv? persuaded, and 
ready to conclude, that this boasted TRUTH, which pre 
tended to be the sole Directress of human conduct, was 
indeed no better than a shifting and fantastic Vision. 

This, I presume, was the light in which Pilate consi 
dered the SAVTOTII OF TJIE WOULD, Had he sus 
pected Jesus of being the Founder of a public and a 
popular Religion, which aimed to be erected on the ruins 
-of the established Worship, the jealousies of the Roman. 
Court, since the loss of public liberty, had, doubtless, 
made ibis servile Minister of Power very attentive, and 
even officious, to suppress it in its birth. 

Hut if the ill usage of TRUTH by the Philosophers 
<could so disgust the Politician of old, as to indispose 
him to an acquaintance of this importance, what must 
we think will he her reception amongst modern States 
men, whose views are neither more pure nor more gene 
rous ; and whose penetration, perhaps, does not go much 

p 4 beyond 


beyond the busy men of Antiquity; when they see her so 
freely handled by those, amongst us, who call themselves 
her Ministers, and profess to consecrate her to the Service 
of Religion ? Amongst such, I mean of the active no less 
than of the idle part of the fashionable World, Pilate s 
scornful question is become proverbial, when they would 
insinuate, that TRUTH, like Virtue , is nothing but a 

What is this TRUTH, say they, of which the world has 
heard so much, and has received so little satisfaction? But 
above all, what is that GOSPEL TRUTH, the pretended 
Guide of life, which its Ministers are wont so much to 
discredit in their very attempts to recommend ? For while 
objections to Religion lie level to the capacities of the 
Vulgar, the solution of them requires the utmost stretch 
of parts and learning in tire Teacher to excogitate, and 
equal application and attention in the Learner to com 
prehend. From which (say they) we are naturally led 
to conclude, that the Gospel ckctrines are no Truths, or 
at least, Truths of no general concern ; since they are 
neither uniformly held by those who are employed to 
teach them, nor subject to the examination of such as are 
enjoined to receive them. 

Something like this, I apprehend, may be the way of 
thinking and talking too, amongst those who have more 
decently discarded all care and concern about the 
Things of Religion. 

And as our acquired passions and appetites have con 
curred with the constitutional weakness of our nature to 
form these conclusions against TRUTH, and especially 
against that best part of it, RELIGIOUS TRUTH, Charity 
seems to call upon us to detect and lay open the gene 
ral causes which have given birth to Men s prejudices 
against it. 

I. And first with regard to TRUTH in general; of 
the various hindrances to its discovery, and of Men s 
backwardness to acquiesce in it, when luckily found. 

The first and surest Means of acquiring the good we 
seek, is our love and affection for the object. This 
quickens our industry, and sharpens our attention. On 
this account the LOVE OF TRUTH hath always been re 
commended by the Masters of Wisdom as the best means 



of succeeding in the pursuit of it. Hardly any one sus 
pects that he wants this Love : yet there are few whom 
their confidence Hoes not deceive. We mistake the love- 
of our Opinions for the lore of Truth ; because we sup 
pose our own Opinions, true : Yet, for the most part, 
we received them upon trust ; and consequently, they arc 
much more likely to be false : So that our affections 
being now misplaced, they are a greater hindrance in the 
pursuit of TRUTH, than if we had no affections at all 
concerning it. 

How then shall we know when we have this love ? for 
still it is necessary we should have it, if we would search 
after TRUTH to any good purpose. It is difficult to de 
scribe what every man must feel for himself; and yet it 
is as dangerous to trust our own feelings, when the Object 
is so easily mistaken. However, when we set out in 
pursuit of TRUTH as of a Stranger ; and not in search of 
Arguments to support our Acquaintance with precon 
ceived Opinions : When we possess ourselves in a per 
fect indifference for every tiling but known and well -at 
tested TRUTH ; regardless of the place from Whence it 
comes, or of that to which it seems to be going : Whe i 
the Mind, I say, is in this State, no one, 1 think, can 
fairly suspect the reality of its attachment. 

1. But our APPETITES rarely suffer us to observe thi* 
strict and rigid conduct. We seek the gratification of 
our humour even in the Laws which should correct it. 
lience so many various SYSTEMS OF MORALITY to suit 
every man s bent of Mind and frame of Constitution. 
The Indolent, the Active, the Sanguine, the Flegmatic,. 
and the Saturnine, have all their correspondent Theories. 
And from thenceforth, the concern of each is not the trial, 
but the support of his Opinions ; which can be no other 
wise provided for than by keeping the arguments in 
favour of them always in view, and by contriving to have 
those of a less benign aspect overlooked or forgotten. 

2. PREJUDICES mislead the Enquirer no less than his 
passions. He venerates the notions he received from his 
forefathers : He rests in them on the authority of those 
whose judgment he esteems; or, at least, wishes well to 
them for the sake of the honours or profits he sees attached 
to the profession of them. Nay, he can persuade him 


self to patronize what he hath once chosen, for reasons 
with which TRUTH has no manner of concern. He likes 
them because they are old ; because they are new ; for 
being plain and simple ; for being wbtiwe and mysterious ; 
for being followed by the Few ; for being followed by 
the Many : in a word, on a thousand other accounts 
Still more remote from the conclusions of common s< . 

But then, bad as this is, since it is, at the same time, 
Apparent, that the impediments in pursuit of Tut TF? are 
not essential, but only accidental to the Inquiry, we may 
well account for our mistakes in setting out ; for the slow 
ness of our progress; and the rubs and oppositions we 
meet in our passage, without having recourse to any 
sceptical conclusions in favour of the incomprehensible 
nature of TRUTH, or the inaccessible situation in which 
the Author of all things hath been pleased to -place her. 
For, is it any reason, that because some Truths are so 
deep that our haste and impatience will not allow us 
time to sound them ; others so disguised that our dissipa 
tion will not enable us to unmask their pretences ; and 
others again, so unfriendly to cur prejudices as to indis 
pose us to examine them : That, because some errors 
wear so plausible a face as to look like TRUTH ; others, 
o commodious an appearance as to be readily received 
for TRUTH ; and others again, so fashionable as to claim 
all the privileges due to TRUTH ; is, I say, all, or any 
thing of this, a reason for sober men to conclude, that 
either there is no difference between Truth and Falsehood} 
or that the difference}?, so insensible that it will not serve 
us for a distinction ? Our Senses, in many cases ; our 
Reason, in more ; and our very Hearts in almost all, will 
tell us the contrary. 

II. Secondly, with regard to RELIGIOUS TRUTH. < 
i. Mistaken constancy, or more tenacious ZFAL, make 
some men prejudiced in favour of /c xv alloiccd Opinions : 
and the obliquer affections of avarice or ambition make 
others declare for such as arc established* OPPOSITION 
likewise will too much dispose Both, to support what they 
may even suspect to be fuLse, and to secrete what they 
know to be true. This draws them still further from 
the road of TRUTH ; while all they seek is to be at dis 
tance from one another s parties and Opinions. 

2. Inveterate 


2. Inveterate errors, long since sanctified by Time 
and Authority, concerning the nature and end of Scarp- 
TUME, are another occasion of the disgraces to which 


Itevclatio/i -is become subject. 

GOD S WRITTEN Yv oiiD is so commonly and so justly 
honoured with the name of THE TRUTH ; and holy \Vrit 
in general so frequently recommended for its virtue in 
leading us into all J rulii* that simple, well-meaning men 
have been apt to regard it as a Treasury of Science ; and 
to apply to it for all the principles of human knowledge. 
How wretchedly, for instance, hath the Mosaic account 
of the Creation been dishonoured, by the wild and fan 
ciful expositions of men besotted by this or that Sect of 
heathen PHILOSOPHY, or of Christian MYSTICISM] 
Platonists, Materialists, Cartesians, Chimists, Cabalists, 
and all the impure Fry of Physical, Philological, and 
Spiritual Enthusiasts, have found each his own whimsies 
realized in the first and second chapters of the Book of 

Again, how impiously have the JEWISH LAW and the 
GOSPEL OF JESUS been abused by Slaves and Syco 
phants, to find, in one, the DIVIXE URMIT of KINGS ; 
and, in the other, the SUPREME DOMIXIOX OF THE 

But amidst all this folly and mischief, arising from a 
perversion ofthcBnvLE, to support human Systems of 
Philosophy and Politics, had men only reflected, that 
though the Bible tells us, it was written to make men 
K isc itaddeth unto salvation *, they would have sought 
for the Principles of natural smd. civil knowledge amongst 
their proper Professors ; and have studied Scripture only 
to investigate that WISDOM ichich is from above, and it 
first PURE, then PEACEABLE f. A wisdom which, at 
the same time that it rectifies the understanding, purifies 
the heart; and so removes all ground of contention raised 
by a perplexed head or a heated temper. 

The first Propagators of our holy FAITH, under the 
immediate Commission of their Master, were, in this, as 
in all other parts of their conduct, truly admirable. What 
they chiefly proposed to the People at large, was the 
of a few clear and simple propositions, as neces- 
* 2 Tim. iii. 15. f James iii. 17. 



sary to Salvation : When they addressed themselves to 
those chosen Particulars, who were fitly qualified and 
rightly disposed, they as warmly recommend EXAMI 
NATION : to Search the, Scriptures *, and to try all 

Yet the only use a late Writer f could find in so sage 
and generous a conduct, was to abuse it, in a profane 
piece of drollery, under the form of a serious question, 
tVkether Christianity was founded in Argument or in 
Faith ? which, however designed for Wit, was just as 
wise as, JVhcthcr St. Paul s Clock was constructed on 
MECHANISM or on MOTION? Since, if the Clock was 
seen to have motion, we could not but conclude that the 
motion arose from mechanism. So, if the vital principle 
of Christianity be FAITH, it can be no other than such 
a Faith as stands upon Reason, and is supported by 
Argument. A wild Indian, perhaps, might fancy that 
St. Paul s Clock was animated, and put in motion by q. 
Spirit : And an Enthusiast, still wilder than the Savage, 
may say that Faith is but the Seal of a supernatural im 
pression. Yet surely, none but a Fool of the old stamp, 
or a Fanatic of the mzc, would be willing to discard 
REASON, in pursuit of his Juture happiness, when he has 
already found IT so useful in procuring his present. For 
both present and future Good are, alike, acquired by the 
proper adaption of means to ends. An operation which, 
all must confess, the Aid of REASON only can effectually 
perform. Nor hath this faithful Guide of life ever afforded 
cause of complaint or jealousy. When men, who profess 
to be under HER guidance, tind themselves bewildered, 
they should suspect, not HER, but themselves. And, on 
a fair examination, I suppose, they will always find, that 
they have been directing REASON when they should have 
been directed by HER. But the wayward Affections 
which occasion her discredit, go on in their illusions to 
excite our distrust 


Thus much for SCEPTICISM, that bane of human 
Science, which, while it boasts to be the NERVES OF THE 
deprives it ol all it* force and vigour. I now 

* John v. -p. f Dodwell. 

i-ret run $pw*. ISpicliarmus. 



proceed to consider the temper and disposition necessary 
to be acquired by us, before we can safely and profitably 
employ the AIDS OF REASON to explain the TRUTHS OF 

The greatest impediment to Men s advancement in the 
knowledge of the nature and genius of the CHRISTIAN 
RELIGION, hath ever been their adopting or espousing 
some favourite HYPOTHESIS, whereon to erect the Gos 
pel System. For every dispensation of true Religion* 
consisting of means and end, the well-adapting these to 
each other, produceth what we call a SYSTEM. 

Now this may be built either on an HYPOTHESIS ,, 
which is a supposed truth, or on a FACT, which is a real 
one. And the Systems of Theology have, for the most 
part, been unwarily framed on the former model ; which, 
as we say, have much entangled and perplexed our 
searches after Truth. 

Into this mistake men easily fell by injudiciously apply-*- 
ing, to the SYSTEM OF GRACE, the method which Philo 
sophers invented, when they set upon explaining the 

They did not consider that any plausible Hypothesis 
in Physics hath its use, as it serves to shew from what 
Laws the natural Phenomena may arise. Nor is it des 
titute of more particular uses ; thus the Ptolemaic Hijpc- 
thesis enables Astronomers to predict Eclipses as well as 
the Copernican Theory. 

But a mere Hypothesis, to explain the Dispensation of 
Grace, is not only useless, but often, hurtful. 

The reason is apparent. It is agreed by all sober and 
intelligent Naturalists, that God is the Author of the 
Material System : But it is the great question in debate 
between Religionists and Unbelievers, Whether God be 
indeed the Author of the System of Grace. 

At worst, therefore, a false Hypothesis in Physics only 
keeps hid, or leaves unexplained, the chief beauties of 
the Material Creation : And the disgrace, to which this 
method is subject, falls only upon the successless In 
quirer; because every such false or fanciful Hypothesis 
carries along with it, even in the very arguments for its 
support, the Conviction of its falsehood. "But a ground 
less Hypothesis, in religious matters, by affording (and it 



can afford no other) an unfavourable representation of the 
moral Attributes of God (his Cidodftcss and his Justice) 
becomes a fatal discredit to the Doctrine of Redemption. 

Yet, at the same time, it is but just to observe, that 
such is the fate and condition of sublunary things, that 
these sometimes exchange their proper qualities, and pro 
duce effects not correspondent to their respective natures. 

Thus in the case as thus considered, we have shewn 
how haniness a mere hypothesis in Physics generally is, 
and, on the contrary, how one in Religion is as generally 
pernicious, Yet sometimes we shall find the Physical 
Hypothesis to be hurtful, and the Religious useful. 

The Pi denude System, by destroying all that simplicity 
of motion to be expected in these Works of God, hath, along 
with its civil and practical use, occasioned a speculative 
mischief; and inclined men to Atheism ; as appears in 
the case of Alphdnsui, who impiously boasted, that, had 
he been consulted about the Solar System, he could have 
advised how it might have been better constructed. I 
call it an impiaw* boast, because it plainly insinuated, that 
he (who had discovered the imperfections of the Ptoler 
inaic Construction, and was ignorant of the true) ascribed 
the whole to a blind cmd luiinte.Wgent Came. Again, 
the Cartesian, with his Corpuscularian Hypothesis, at 
tempts to explain all the Phenomena of Nature .by mat* 
ter and motion; requiring only that God should at first 
create a sufficient quantity of each, just enough to set him 
on work, and then pretends to do the business without 
his further aid ; that is, without the concourse of any 
VITAL PRINCIPLE to help him forward, in an immaterial 
.way ; this Hypothesis^ I say, which, on the one hand, so 
much contributed to free Philosophy from the nonsense 
and tyranny of the SCHOOLS, yet, on the other, produced 
(while it was in vogue) many rank and irreligious 

Eut once more turn the tables, and then, so shifting is 
this state of things, we shall see, although we have shewn 
that, in the heights and purer regions of -Theology, zmere 
hypothecs is likely to disturb and perplex our views, yet 
there is an inferior station in that service, where the Di 
vine may employ this counterfeit of a true Theory to very 
good purpose ; in discrediting such objections to Revda- 
i j tion 


lion as have gained credit by our imperfect ideas of the 
true System of the intellectual World. Here a probable 
hypothesis is of use, as it may serve to convince objectorsy 
that what we find recorded in Sacred Scripture of the 
Origin and Progress of God s extraordinary Dispensation 
to Man, may be very consistent with what human Reason 
teacheth of the divine Essence and Attributes. And 
the more we can frame of those probable Solutions, the 
more support we give to Revelation, though it be only 
by arguments ad ignorantiam. 

Notwithstanding all this, it appears, upon the whole, 
that a successful Search after Religious Truths can be. 
then only expected when we erect cur System upon FACT * 
acknowledged Facts, as they arc recorded in Sacred 



For if the Dispensation, to which such Facts belong^ 
be indeed from God, all (he Parts of it will be seen to be 
the correspondent Members of one entire WHOLE ;. 
which orderly disposition of things, essential to a reli 
gious SYSTEM, will assure us of the TRUE THEORY 
of the Christian Faith) 

But the abuse of Words ^ confounding those of HYPO 
THESIS and SYSTEM witli one another (the word Si/stew* 
being a common term, which may be applied equally to* 
fen Hypothesis era true Theory) hath thrown a discredit 
on the latter, with which the former only is chargeable. 
Examples of this the attentive Reader may find among the 
Dumberless Cavils to the Work of The Divine Legation. 

Hitherto we have endeavoured to- shew in what way 
HUM AX REASON should be employed on religious 
matters.---But then, how far, when thus employed, fche 
is to be indulged, is the next thing to be considered. 

The three moral Attributes of the Godhead, discover 
able by natural Light, on which men are accustomed to 
Examine the pretensions oiMemtafioj^ are his JUSTICE, 
liis GOODNESS, and his WISDOM. But the Reasoncr on 
Religion will transgress his bounds, unless he confine 
himself within the twojirst. The evidence of this asser 
tion is convincing. 

c To form a. right judgement of the divine Attributes of 
JUSTICE and GOODNESS, the .only relations, to be taken 



into consideration, are those of GOD and MA x. But to 
judo e truly of the WISDOM of the Godhead, other relations 
besides those of God and Man, namely, the whole 
order of intellectual Beings, dispersed throughout the 
universe, are to be added to the account : Of whom, 
further than of their mere existence, we know nothing. 

From hence it is seen, that we may safely determine, 
whether any thing in REVELATION contradict God s 
JUSTICE and GOODNESS. If it doth, such Revelation 
is to he rejected. Not so, with regard to his WJSDOM, 
therein manifested in any particular instance; although 
our natural knowledge of the iking and Attributes of 
God assures us ; that the GREAT ALL is conducted with 
the most consummate H ixdom. 

REVET ATION therefore is not to be rejected on account 
of difficulties arising from our ignorance ofci/llhc relations 
necessary to be taken in, when we would attempt to form 
a complete judgment of the exertion of the Attribute of 

Vv hy this precise mode of .REDEMPTION by the death 
ami sufferings of Christ was preferred to all other, in 
the eternal purpose of the Godhead, exceeds the powers 
of human reason to discover ; because his Attribute of 
WISDOM, which is out of the reach of man to apply to 
this inquiry, is here concerned. But when it hath been 
proved by Fact, that a Religion was revealed in which 
this mode of Redemption is employed, then Reason m-ay 
lend her modest aid to shew (what a rational Religion 
seems to expect should be shewn) that this precise mode 
is conformable to all our ideas of divine goodness and 
justice : Nay, that it best quadrates with, as it is seen to 
be the properest means of, a RESTORATION TO A FREE 


" Tills difference, in the Application of Reason to reli 
gious matters, MOSES hath not obscurely intimated to 
his People ; where, in his last direction for their conduct^ 
he says, The SECRET THINGS belong unto the LORD our 
GOD ; but those things which arc REVEALED belong to 
us and to OUR CHILDREN, for ever.* ; and had I not 
observed this sage direction, but vainly endeavoured to 
explain Mysteries which the Gospel hath left unexplained, 


I should 


I should justly have incurred the Censure of Jerom to his 
Adversaries, IV hy (says this Father) do you pretend^ 
after so many ages are elapsed, to teach us what was 
never taught before! Why, attempt to EXPLAIN what 
neither PETER nor PAUL thought it necessary to be 

1 . The Principles, here laid down, may be of use, First, 
to direct future Enquirers in the RIGHT WAY; where, if, 
on other accounts, they make but slow advances, they 
are, at least, kept from wandering in the dark. For while 
the bounds of Reason continue unsettled, and the use 
and abuse of this noble instrument of Truth remain con 
founded with one another, the very ablest Seeker will be 
embarrassed and misled f . Hence it hath come to pass, 
that this first and necessary step in support of our 


been so generally overlooked : instead of which a thou 
sand metaphysical subtilties on the terms and phrases 
under which the doctrine of SAVING GRACE is conveyed, 
have engaged men s principal attention ; while the thing 
itself, a matter of the utmost importance, hath been suf 
fered to lie in all the Obscurity in which old Polemics 
had involved it. So true hath our perverse nature ever 
been to itself. " Hoc habet irigenium humanum," (says 
the great Philosopher) " ut cum ad SOLI DA non sufficiat, 
" in SUPEIIVACANKIS se atterat J." 

2. Another use of these Principles is to convince Un 
believers, that REVEALED RELIGION affords, and is 
productive of, all the evidence which the nature of the 
thing requires; and consequently, all which right reason 
can expect: And that the strongest of their objec 
tions to it arise from the abusive exercise of our Faculties, 
employed on objects which those Faculties can neither 
apprehend nor reach. 


But now, all PARTIES, in support of their oblique in 
terests, have concurred to decry this method of Inquiry 
whereby, from the various genius, the comparative excel 
lence, the mutual dependence, the reciprocal illustration 

* -Ad Pammachium fy Ocean um de crroribus Origenis. 

f Limborcb s Arnica collatio cum erudito Judxo. t Bacon, 

VOL. VI. Q of 


of the several parts of God s moral Dispensation to 
Mankind, and the gradual progress of the Whole towards 
perfection, .-great discoveries have been made in these 
latter times, by men who dared to break the barrier, 
which Bigotry and Superstition had been -so long form 
ing, to obstruct our views both of NATURE and of 

These PARTIES ask, How it happened that Disco 
veries so sublime and useful, as is pretended, were now 
to make ; when the light of the Spirit was sent so early, 
and had illuminated the Church so long ? How it hap 
pened, that these Truths were denied to the best times, 
and, after lying hid for many ages, were reserved for the 
reward of the very worst? And then in their real or pre 
tended reverence for Establishments, concur in condemn 

To these, under their sad suspicions of the issue, in 
forsaking the OLD POSTURE OF DEFENCE, it will be suffi 
cient to reply, 

i. That the promise and gift of the Holy Spirit may 
be considered, either as they referred to the first Propa 
gators of the Faith, or as they concerned the Teachers of 
it, ever since. 

As to the first Propagators, there is no doubt of their 
being abundantly enlightened for the work of their 
Ministry; whether it was in making Converts, in found 
ing Churches, or in composing those occasional instruc 
tions, by which the Faithful, in all ages, may improve 
the current benefits of the same Spirit. As to the suc 
ceeding Teachers of the word, the assistance they receive 
from the HOLY; SPIRIT, is the second point we are more 
particularly to consider. 

Now the endowment of GRACE is, in this respect, 
pretty much the same with the endowment of NATURE ; 
of little advantage to the receiver without his co-opera 
tion. God hath bestowed upon us hands and feet, to 
procure good, and to avert evil ; but it is to the careful 
and habitual application of these members to their proper 
uses, that we owe all the benefits they are capable of 
producing. So it is with the free gift of the Spirit. It 
is bestowed upon us, to enlighten the understanding, and 
to redress the disorders of the Will. But it does not 



work like a Charm: for if either we neglect to employ 
these given powers, or will divert them to improper sub 
jects, the use and efficacy of Grace must certainly be 

This Ordinance in the economy of GRACE, may re 
ceive credit from what is seen to have happened in the 
economy of NATURE. The power, wisdom, and good 
ness of the Almighty is so evident and convincing, from 
every obvious configuration of matter surrounding us, 
that these Attributes cannot escape the most inattentive, 
or lie concealed from the most short-sighted. Hence a 
GOD, the Maker, the Preserver, and Governor of the 
World, is the^umversal voice 67 Nature. 

Now CREATION and GOVERNMENT, from whence 
the morality of human Actions is deduced, are the found 
ation of NATURAL RELIGION : so that GOD cannot 
be said to have been wanting in the discovery of him 
self to the lowest of his rational Creatures : Yet, though 
the general arid obvious marks of his power, wisdom, 
and goodness, obtrude themselves upon all men, it is 
nevertheless certain that a well-directed study of the Book 
of Nature opens to us such Stupendous wonders of his 
P oiver, such awful Scenes of his Wisdom, and such en 
chanting prospects of his Goodness, as far exceed all con 
ception of the unlearned and uninstructed Beholder. 
Some faint taste of these delights the more inquisitive 
enjoyed very early : But those who came after, by indulg 
ing too much to abstract SPECULATION, and trusting too 
little to EXPERIMENT, instead of discovering a real world, 
the Archetype of its Maker, invented a variety of imagi 
nary ones, all as dishonourable, as they were unrelated 
to him. At length, two of our own countrymen of superior 
genius chalked out a different road to the study of 
Nature", in which vague conjecture was excluded ; and 
facts, verified on experiments, were allowed to be the 
only inlet to physical knowledge. Henceforth, NATUK*; 
was set before us, unvciied; and her Sacred Mysteries 
held out to the knowledge and admiration of all men. 

This was the progress in the ways of NATURE: The 
ways of GRACE ran the very same fortune. 

The great Principles of revealed Religion are FAITH 
and OBEDIENCE. These, -which are alone sufficient to 

Q 2 make 


fnoke men wise unto Salvation, are clearly and fully taught 
in the Gospel. But we should greatly derogate from 
God s moral Government, did we not allow it to abound 
in the like sublime Wonders with the Natural. And to 
the study of the first, there are more important Calls, 
and much greater Advantages. The knowledge of God s 
moral Government, as far as concerns his religious Dis 
pensations, is the duty of every man: and, indeed, the 
whole business of the Ministers of his revealed word. 
So that partly, for the use and importance of the subject, 
partly, for the necessity of making head against the Ene 
mies of Revelation, but chiefly in obedience to the Com 
mand, TO STUDY THE SCRIPTURES, it hath, from the 
first ages of the Church to the present times, been one 
of t^e principal occupations of the Learned. Yet what, 
from unfavourable circumstances in the civil and literary 
world; what, from the varying bias of occasional preju 
dices; but, above all, from tiie sordid interests and blind 
passions of men occupied in these Inquiries; the various 
Schemes of Religion, pretended to be found in Scripture, 
but indeed, the workmanship of Divines, had dishonoured 
the Doctrine of REDEMPTION near as much as the hypo 
thesis of Philosophers had dishonoured the History of the 
CREATION. Till here again, as in the former case, the 
same caution and sobriety which directed men to the true 
method of treating things material, by a careful study 
of the volume of NATURE, led them into the right way 
of explaining things spiritual, by a careful study of the 
volume of GRACE. So that if, in these times, the ad 
vances in the knowledge of God s WILL should haply 
prove as considerable as those in the discovery of his 
WORKS, it will not be beside a reasonable expectation j 
as similar causes are wont to produce similar effects. 

I have placed these correspondent accounts of the pro 
gress of the human faculties, in NATURE and in GRACE, 
in this neighbourly position, that the Reader, by setting 
them together, and comparing them with one another, 
may see, whether there be any Objections to NEW DIS 
COVERIES in Religion, which do not equally hold against 
KEW DISCOVERIES in Nature , of which, for their new* 
ntss alone, no one ever yet entertained the least doubt 
er suspicion of their TRUTH. 


For let us compare the Almighty s display of his 
nature in the great Y 7 olume of his WOR.KS^ with the de 
claration of his Will in the lesser Volume of his WORD, 
and we shall find the same marks of GOODNESS to be 
alike conspicuous in hoth cases. 

In his Works, a man need but open his Eyes to see in 
every Object, the God which claims his adoration: In his 
Word, the Man, who rum, may read, the Means and* 
Method of his own Salvation. In neither case, is any 
thing wanting to instruct the most simple in their depen 
dence and their duty ; in which, consists their happiness. 
For further information in the works and ways of Pro 
vidence, God wisely reserved it for the reward of the 
manly and virtuous improvement of the human faculties. 

It is true in fact, as hath been already intimated, that 
throughout a long series of Ages, neither of these Inqui 
rers made any very considerable Advances in REAL 
KNOWLEDGE. 15ut it is as true, that what hindered 
Both, proceeded not so much from difficulties in the 
things sought after, as from the wrong Methods em 
ployed in the search. For, instead of addressing them 
selves to discover the true Constitution of Things from 
the Frame of God s works, as objected to their Senses ; 
or the true End of Revelation from Sacred Scripture, as 
it there lies open to their Contemplation, they framed 
fanciful hypotheses, out of their own slender stock of 
ideas ; and then, by distorting Nature, and wresting the 
Bible awry, they forced both one and the other, to Father 
their own blind and spurious Issue. 

But when once DIVINES and PHILOSOPHERS were 
become sensible of their wrong Courses ; and, in conse 
quence of that conviction, had measured back their steps ; 
and with more modesty and better sense had renounced 
tiieir fancies, and erected Theories on the real consti 
tution of things; it is wonderful to conceive what disco 
veries were soon made in Natural and Religious Truths. 

alike circumstanced, and having run the same fortune, 
demand, in all reasonable allowance, the same judgment 
to be passed on their pretences. 

But Men are not accustomed to be thus equitable. 
One of the readiest, as well as most impudent exploits 

Q 3 of 


of Prejudice, is to draw unlike conclusions from similar 

It is confessed, that the book of Nature is so plain 
and clear, that every Sentence reveals and proclaims its 
Almighty Author : that if its more sublime or more 
profound truths have lain concealed, or been kept out of 
sight, for Ages, it was the fault of the Inquirers, who ad 
hered so long to a perverse method of studying Nature : 
for that, as soon as ever they began to seek a better, and 
to prosecute it with care and sobriety, KNOWLEDGE 
suddenly opened and enlarged its Empire; while the blaze 
of light which accompanied its progress, was so far from 
making Truth suspected for the newness of its- Splendour, 
that it dissipated all those doubts which had been enter 
tained of its obscure nature, and equivocal Claims and 

But now, if we turn from the Physical to the Moral 
state of things, we shall find, Men have drawn different in 
ferences from similar cases. Because, in their search after 
the higher Truths of Religion, they had been long unsuc 
cessful, they not only toot umbrage at these now found, 
and, like some jewels, found too by their own surround 
ing light, but conceived fresh doubts even of the most 
obvious principles which led to these late discoveries. 

2. There is, yet, another sort of Believers (and this 
brings me to the second part of the Objection) who, 
from too great a reverence for things established, join 
with such as have too little, in decrying all NOVELTIES 
in religious Matters. These men, in abhorrence of the 
Vanity of being wiser than their Fathers, have in express 
terms denounced their displeasure against MAKING what 

This is strange language in a Country of Liberty; and 
stranger still, in an Age of Reason. DIVINES, it is 
true, have long disputed how experiments in Religion 
should be made ! Some would depend on Scripture alone; 
others were for taking in, Fathers and Councils ; a third 
sort, for adding Tradition to the process ; and a fourth, 
for applying raillery and ridicule to quicken the opera 
tion. So that, ever since the fall of Monkery, all were,, 
for making .some Experiment or other. For what is 
making sober experiments, but (as hath been shewn) 



supporting and illustrating REVELATION by new Argu 
ments, furnished by new Discoveries made in the Order; j 
Fitness, and Harmony of God s various Dispensations of 
Religion amongst themselves, and with one another; just 
as PHILOSOPHERS (from whom the Word is borrowed, 
and we sec how unluckily) unfold Nature by new disco 
veries, made from repeated trials on the obvious qualitie* 
and hidden Contents of Material Substances. 

No experiments in Religion is indeed the civil cant of 
POLITICIANS ; for Bigotry and State -croft often meet; 
as extremes easily run into one another by the very attempt 
to keep them at a distance. This, as I say, is one of the 
fundamental Articles of the Statesman s Creed. For 
Religion being useful to Society ; and yet, in his Opinion, 
only a well-invented Fiction, all experiments, that is, all 
strict inquiries into its Nature, cannot but tend to weaken, 
rather than support, this useful Ally of Civil Govern 
ment. But for a man, who believes Religion to have 
come, and in an extraordinary manner, from God, to be 
alarmed with the danger of experiments, as if Truth 
would not bear to be seen on all Sides, is the most ridi 
culous of all panic terrors. Might we not reasonably 
ask such a one, How it comes to pass, that Experiments, 
which are of so sovereign use in the knowledge of Nature, 
should be calculated to make such havoc In the study of 
Religion ? Are not Nature and Religion both the Off 
spring of God r Were not both given for human Contem 
plation? Have not both (as proceeding from the dark 
Recesses of his Throne) their depths and obscurities ? 
And doth not the unfolding the Mysteries of his moral 
Government tend equally, with the displaying the Secrets 
of his natural, to the advancement of his glory, and the 
happiness of Mankind ? 

In a word, Had no experiments been made in Nature, 
we had still slept in the shade, or beea kept entangled in 
the barren and thorny paths of SCHOOL PHILOSOPHY; 
and had no experiments been made in Religion, we had 
still kept blundering on in the dark and rugged Wilds of 

To conclude therefore, and in the words of our ^reat^ >K 
Philosopher " Let no man, upon a weak commit of 
" sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or main- 

U4 " tain 


" tain, that a man can search too far, or be too well 
" studied in THE BOOK OF GOD S WORD, or in the 
" book of GOD S WORKS; but rather let Men endeavour 


" only let them beware that the} 7 apply both to CHARITY, 
" and not to swelling; to USE, and not to ostentation; 
" and again, that they do not UNWISELY MINGLE OR 


* BACON, Advancement of Learning, lib. i. Could we suppose the 
divinity of Bacon s Genius to have been such as that he foresaw the 
miserable havoc which a late Cabalistic Crew have made both of the. 
WORKS and WORD of God by this impure and unnatural mixture, we 
can hardly conceive words more expressive, or a warning more 
awakening, than what is here contained in this caution against all 
BUch blind Workers in dirt and darkness. 






. : .J. l! I 

I BEG AN this Work by an ARGUMENT (Ions; since 
completed) to prove that A FUTURE STATE OF RE 
WARDS AND PUNISHMENTS was not taught by Moses; 
but -that, in its stead, an equal or extraordinary Pro- 
cidence was the Sanction of the LAW. And I now con 
clude it, with a corrohoration of that ARGUMENT, by 
shewing, that life and immortality was brought to light 
by the GOSPEL alone. 

From whence results this further Truth, That were 
MOSES and the PROPHETS the commissioned Servants of 
God, THEY COULD NOT, by their office, TEACH A FUTURE 
STATE ; since it was ordained, and reserved for, the 
Ministry of JESUS. 

Besides, What the LAW promised was to be obtained 
by WORKS. What the GOSPEL brought to light, under 
the name of Salvation, is to be procured by FAITH in a 
crucified Saviour and Redeemer. From these Truths 
will arise another proof of the Divinity, both of the LAW 
and the GOSPEL. 

But as all this can be shewn no otherwise, than by a 
distinct and collective view of the whole of God s moral 
Dispensation to Man, commencing with ADAM, and 
completed in JESUS CHRIST, I have made the NATURE 
AND GENIUS OF THE GOSPEL the subject of the Ninth 
and last Book of the DIVINE LEGATION. 



Of the two immediately foregoing, namely, the Seventh 
and the Eighth Books *, the first of them is employed in 
supporting the MAJOR and the MINOR propositions of the 
first Syllogism : by a continued history of the Religious 
Opinions of the Jewish People, on this matter, from the 
time of their earliest Prophets (who gave some dark 
intimations of a different dispensation), to the time of the 
Maccabees, when the Doctrine of a FUTURE STATE of 
rewards and punishments was become National. 

The other, namely the Eighth Book, is employed in 
supporting the MAJOR and the MINOR propositions of the 
second Syllogism ; in which is considered the PERSONAL 
so far forth as it concerns, or has a relation to the Cha 
racter of the LAWGIVER. 

As the main Argument of all the foregoing Books, of 
hitherto esteemed too Paradoxical ; the Argument of this 
last, concerning THE NATURE AND GENIUS OF THE 
GOSPEL, it is more than probable, may be condemned, 
and by the same men, as being too Orthodoxical : For 
I have, long since, observed, that a religious Notion is 
apt to change its nature in the estimation of certain 
Divines, when it changes its Advocate. 

Were I concerned with none but UNBELIEVERS, in 
this present Discourse, my only task, and a short one too, 
would be to prove the reasonableness of these which 
I hold to be the essential Doctrines of Christianity; for 
Unbelievers confess they are to be found in the Gospel, 
but deny them to be of divine Original, on account ot the 
supposed absurdities which attend them ; in the same : 
manner that they have allowed the Doctrine of a future 
state, not to be found in the LAW ; and therefore denied 
that Dispensation to be given by God, because such an 
omission, they pretend, makes it unworthy ol him. This, 
I say, h sd been a labour both short and easy, had I not 
to do, likewise, uith a sort of BELIEVERS, who, as they 
held that the- doctrine of a.ju-tune state made part ot the 
MOSAIC RELIGION, because they think the honour of 
the L^ w requires that it should be found there ; so, with 
the same spirit, they deny that the Doctrine of Salvation 
* bee p. 144 of this Volume. 



in a Redeemer, by Faith alone, makes a part of the 
CHRISTIAN RELIGION, because, they think, the honour 
of the GOSPEL requires that it should not he found there. 

Enough hath been urged, in the course of the main 
Argument, against the Jirst of these perversities : the 
second will detain us longer than such plain truths seem 
to require : because the attempt to shew the reasonable 
ness of these which we call the essential Doctrines of 
Christianity, will be deemed immature, till we have 
established very clear and circumstantial evidence of 
their real existence in the SYSTEM : for laboured Dis 
courses have been written to prove that FAITH ALONE 
includes WORKS ; and that REDEMPTION, according to 
the Scripture Doctrine of it, excludes a REDEEMER. 

I am therefore, first of all, to prove the EXISTENCE 
of these Doctrines; and then, the REASONABLENESS 
of them. In doing which, I cannot but esteem it a 
favourable circumstance, if not a happy omen, that the 
very arguments employed to evince the existence of the 
Doctrines, do, at the same time, serve equally to shew 
the reasonableness of them. 

A JOVE PRINCIFIUM was the formulary of ancient 
Piety and Wisdom, which served to introduce what the 
Sage had to deliver, of more than ordinary importance, 
for the instruction of Mankind. But here, the very 
nature of our present Argument will, of necessity, lead 
us up to the FIRST CAUSE, the Author of all Being. 

For, without beginning at the CREATION, our view 
of these things would be narrow and obscure ; and 
human judgment not sufficiently informed to enable it to 
conclude, with any degree of certainty, concerning a 
REVELATION, which is the completion of one great 
Moral System, the principles of which were laid in the 
disobedience of our first Parents. 

In this Inquiry, as in all that have gone before, our 
desire is, not to be carried up and down with the JVaves 
of uncertain Arguments (to use the words of a great 
Master of Reason), but rathqr positively to lead on the 
Minds oj the simpler Sort, by plain and easy degrees, till 



* Hooker s Eccl. Polity. 



Moses, in the account he gives of the CREATION, ex 
pressly teiis us, that MAN, or the human species, was the 
Work of the STXTH DAY. " So God created Man in 
" his own Image; in the linage of God created he him ; 


" blessed TH EM, and God said unto THEM, be fruitful and 
" multiply and replenish flic Earth, and have Dominion 
" over every living thing that rnovcth upcn the Earth. 
" And God sai i, behold I have given you every herb bear- 
" ing seed which is upon the face of the Earth, and tvtry 
" Trte, in which is the fruit of a Tree yielding seed, to you 
" it shall bejor meat. And the evening and the morning 
* were the SIXTH DAY*." Yet, because the formation 
of WOMAN, from the side of MAN, was not circum- 
st(intiulli) related till alter the account of God s placing 
Man in PARADISE }", both Jews and Christians J have 
generally concurred in one Opinion, that EVE was not 
created i\\\ ADAM was put into possession of the Garden 
of Eden ; for they took it for granted, that Moses 
(though in a Moral or Religious history of the Creation 
tmd Vail of Alan) had observed a Chronologic Order. 

The very absurdity of this Opinion renders the mistake 
so apparent, that the Reader should not have been 
troubled with a formal confutation of it> did not the right 
stating of the fact (so inconsiderable, as on first sight 
it may bethought) serve to contirm a Truth, which hath 
beon generally overlooked, though of the utmost impor 
tance towards out* obtaining a just idea of Revealed Reli- 
gioii , as will be seen in the course of this inquiry. 

i . First, therefore, let it be observed, that Eve could 
rrot be created in the Garden ; since we are expressly 
told, that she was created along with Adam, some time 
before, namely, on the sixth day. Male and female 
created he them. A declaration so decisive, that the 
Itabbins, who will needs have Eve completely formed in 

** Gen. i. 27 31. t Gen. ii. 821 22. 

I Le Clerc says 1 Ecriture nous apprend formellement qu Adam 
donna les noms aux animaux, entre lesquels, il n en trouvoit aucun 
pour Tassister ; aprcs quoi Ditu CREA la Fewme de 1 une des cotes de 
I lioimmt!. Scntiwt-ns de yuelques Tliful. p. 4-23. Dr. Z. Pearce, i^ 
his Notes on Milton against Bentley, p. 233. And Hooker, in hit 
Eccl. Pol. Book V. Sect. 73. Woman was eren in her Jirst Estat 
nature not only ans* u* TIM*) Iwt inferior in exctllencie. 



Paradise, gathered from the Words Male and Female? 
(used by the historian, where he speaks of the Creation 
of the sixth Day) that Adam was an Androgune, a 
double Animal, or Man-Woman, joined side to side*; 
and that the operation of disjoining them was performed 
in the Garden, where indeed Jesus tells us, not a .sepa 
ration, but a closer union commenced. 

2. When Moses gives us the Book of the generations 
of Adam \, he repeats what he had delivered before, that 
man was created male and female. Male and jewale 
created he them^ AND CALLED THEIR NAME ADAM, ixr 


the common name for man and woman ; and that name 
was given them when the Male was created ; conse^ 
quently the female was created with him. 

3. On the other hand, the same kind of reasoning 
which concludes, that the JVoman was not created till 
after the sixth day, will conclude, that the man himself 
was not created till after that day : for, if we suppose 
the History of the Creation observes a strict chronologic 
Order, he was not created till after the seventh day : the 
sacred Writer, immediately alter recording the WORK of 
the six days and the REST of the seventh, proceeds thus, 
And the Lord formed man of the dust of the, Ground, 
and breathed into Jus nostril* the breath of * life \ and man 
became a living soul . Then follows the story of his 

* This Jewish interpretation of the text appears to have been very 
ancient: and to have come early to the knowledge of the Heathen- 
World. Plato, in his Symposiutn, brings in one Aristophanes saying, 
that the ancient nature of man was not as we find it at present, but 
very different, lie was originally A>^cyt/>of, a ifian-vomtw. This 
fancy affords occasion to a pretty Fable, perhaps of the Philosopher s 
own invention, that these Artyyvm were a kind of double-animal, 
joined back to back. But that Jupiter, when he set them agoing in 
lh< World, slit every one of them, and then shuffling the separated part* 
well together, committed them to their fortune : and the employ 
ment of each of them being to find out its partner, the business of lite 
was an incessant search of every one for its better half, in order to be 
rejoined in a more commodious manner. This, says the Philosopher,, 
is the true origin of Love. -\~ Gen. v. J Ver. L>. 

Gen. ii. 7. Pkilo, misled by the common error, that a chrono* 
logical order was observed in the history of the Creation, concluded 
that the Adam, created in the Irna^e of God, Gen. i. 27. was a dif 
ferent man from him who was formed of the dmt of the Ground f 
ii. 7. 


being put into paradise of his deep sleep of the Woman 
formed from his side. If, to this argument, so similar in 
all its parts, it be replied, that the direct assertion of 
Man s creation on the sLvth day is alone sufficient to 
prove that the alter mention of Information from the 
dust of the Ground is but a repetition of, with an addition 
to, the first account ; by which alone the TIME of Man s 
creation is to be determined : if, I say, this be replied, 
I shall take the benefit of the Answer, in favour of what 
I have assigned for the time of Eves creation, where I 
consider the account of her formation from the Rib, 
just in the same light that the Objector sees Adam s for 
mation from the dust of the Ground] that is to say, as 
a repetition only (with other circumstances added) of 
what the Historian had before told us, of Eve s creation 
on the siith dm/, in these words MALE aha FEMALE 
created he them *. 

But further, on a supposition of a Chronological Order 
in the relation, we shall be forced to conclude, not only 
that Eve was created in Paradise, but that she w r as not 
created till AFTEU the command was given not to cat of 
the Tree of Knowledge (f good and evil] for the command 
is found in the seventeenth verge of this Chapter, and her 
formation from the Rib, not till we come to the twenty- 
second verse : consequently, the prohibition did not bind 
or affect Eve. Yet she tells the Serpent (and sure she 
did not pay him in his own coin) that this prohibition 
equally concerned both her and Adam. WE may eat of 
the fruit of ihe trees of the Garden , but of the Tree 
which is in the widst of the Garden, God hath said, 
YE shall not tat of it *\. And accordingly, sentence is 
pronounced by God upon her trangression, as well as 
upon his^. 

5. But lastly, to cut the matter short, the Historian 

expressly tells us, that (j^A finished the work of creation 

in six day. % and rested the seventh day from all his work 

which he had made\. Eve, therefore, must needs have 

been created with Adam on the SIXTH DAT. 

Two points then, only remain to be considered, i . Why 
Moses thought it expedient to give so very particular a 
relation of Eve s formation from the Rib? 2. And why 
* Gen. i. 27. t b. iii. 2, 3. : Ch. iii. 1316. Ch, ii. a. 



he did not chuse to relate this circumstance in the place 
where he mentions her Creation on the sixth day ? 

i . The account of Eve s formation from the Rib was, 
without doubt, given, to inform us, that the UNION of 
the two Sexes, for the propagation of their kind, was 
of a nature more noble and sublime than the consorting 
of other Animals, who were all equally bid, like Man, 
to increase and multiply. For as the Poet says, 
" Not Man alone, but all that roam the Wood, 
" Or wing the Sky, or roll along the flood, 
" Each loves itself, but not itself alone, 

" Each sex desires alike." 

Thus far the common appetite impels ; and Man and 
Beasts are equally subject to this second Law of Earthly 
Beings. But, from henceforth, it becomes, in MAN, 
a very superior Passion. 

" The Young dismissed, to wander Earth or Air; 
" There stops the Instinct, and there ends the Care * 
" A longer care MAN S helpless kind demands: 
" That longer care contracts more lasting bands : 
* REFLKCTIOX, REASON still the ties improve; 
" At once extend the interest and the love." 
Now as REVELATION was given us (amongst other 
purposes more peculiar, indeed, and important) to sup 
port and strengthen the Operations of Reflection and the 
Conclusions of Reason, what could better serve the 
general design, while these were improving for the good 
of the Offspring, than to instruct us in this closer relation 
between the Parents, which arose from a personal Union, 
prior to that of reciprocal fondness? 

But the Historian still more expressly instructs us in 
the end for which he recorded Rvcsj or /nation from the 
Rib, where he makes Adam say, or rather says himself 
Therefore shall a Alan Iccwe his Father and his Mother, 
and shall cleave to his Ji r ife ; and they shall be one flesh : 
alluding to what they originally were, before the separa 
tion of the Rib. 

But the allusions of Inspired Writers go further (of 
which I have given many instances) than just to ornament 
the discourse with the elegance of the conceit. Their 
chief end is to support the particular Truth there incul 
cated. Thus it is in the Text we are now considering ; 



it contains an instruction partly declarative, and partly 
perceptive. In (Btoeu^ttMKttfc, observant of the Command 
to increase and multiply, the Offspring, when enabled to 
provide for itself, is dismissed irom the Parent s Wing, 
by an instinctive provision, which equally disposeth both 
to a Separation. But the REFLECTION and REASON 
bestowed upon Man, which engaged the Parent to a 
longer care, in protecting, and providing for, its Off 
spring, impiesseth on the Offspring, in its turn, a tender 
sense of gratitude, and love towards the Parent, for the 
benefits received in thrt defenceless state ; and naturally 
disposeth it to be attentive to the welfare of the Parent, 
when flattered by the glorious duty of returning an obli 
gation. This might somewhat impede or run counter to 
the first great Command and blessing, which, in the 
infancy of the world, especially, required all possible en 
couragement : Therefore, by the most divine address it is 
here directed, that we should suffer this tie to give place 
to one more important Therefore shall a man leave his 
father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife. 

2. With regard to the second point Why Moses did 
not chuse to relate the Story of the Rib, where he mentions 
Eve s Creation, on the sixth day This may be easily 
understood. The Story of the Woman s formation from 
the Rib is, as may be seen from the sequel of the story, 
of so much concern in domestic life, that we cannot con 
ceive a titter place for it than this, where we find it, in 
the Entrance upon the fatal effects of our first Parent s 
idle curiosity : from which Posterity might draw a Lesson 
of great importance, viz. the mutual obligation incum 
bent on each Sex, when united, to watch over the other s 
conduct, equally with its own ; as nothing can affect the 
welfare of the one, in which the other will not be equally 
concerned ; each being destined to bear, together with 
his own, the other s share, whether of good or evil. The 
account, therefore, of Eve\v formation was, with much 
art and decorum, omitted in the place where the Chro- 
nologist would expect to find it; and postponed, till it 
could be delivered with the advantage of being made an 
introduction to the history of the FALL. 

The best Historians have, in the same manner, created 
beauties from a well-contrived neglect of the order of time. 
12 The 


The next thing to be considered, after the Mosaic 
account of the CREATION of Man, is, what we are told 
concerning his SPECIFIC NATURE. 

*That he was of a nobler Kind than any other of the 
Animals brought, at the same time, into Being, abund 
antly appears from the LIKENESS in which he was made; 
and from the PREEMINENCE which was given to him 
over the rest. " And Ged said, let us make Man IN OUR 
" IMAGE, after our likeness; and let him have DOMI- 
" NT ON over the fish of the Sea, and over the fowl of the 
u Air, and over the Cattle, and over all the Earth *." 

Now, in what did this image or likeness consist ? Cer 
tainly not in Man s having an IMMATERIAL PART, since 
he had this, as the best Philosophy evinceth f, in com 
mon with the whole animal Creation. And the Historian 
makes the image, or likeness, to consist in something pe 
culiar to Man. Now, the only two things, peculiar to 
him, are his SHAPE and his REASON. None but an 
Anthropomorphite will say, that it was his Shape, which 
reflected this Image of his Creator. We must conclude 
therefore, that it was the faculty of REASON which made 
the resemblance. 

But further, when God says, let us make Man in our 
Image, it is immediately subjoined and let him have 
dominion over the whole brute Creation. Now, nothing 
but the faculty of Reason could invest man with this Domi 
nion, DE FACTO, which was bestowed upon him, DE JURE. 

Still further, we see Dominion was given him on ac 
count of this preeminence of being made in the image of 
God Let us make man in our Image, and let him have 
Dominion But a preeminence, which qualified Man for 
Dominion over other Animals, could be nothing but 
REASON, which he had, and which they wanted ; whereas 
an immaterial principle, with which both were endowed, 
afforded no room for preeminence 9 especially such a pre 
eminence as qualified Man for Dominion. 

But now, the substance in which the faculty of Reason 
resides, could not be a material substance, as this best 
Philosophy, we say, hath shewn J. Man, therefore, must 

* Gen. ii. 24. f See note [A] at the end of this Book, 

t See Clarke and Baxter, as represented in the note [A] above 
referred to. 

VOL. VI, R needs 


needs consist of an immaterial Substance, joined to a ma 
terial ; or, in other words, he must be a compound of 
SOUL and BODY. And this seems to be intimated, and 
not obscurely neither, by the Words of the Text ; when 
it comes, in the second Chapter, to give a more distinct 
account of Man s Nature than hath been given in the 
preceding Chapter, where He is placed, according to the 
order of time, in the new framed System of Creation. 
The Lord God formed MAN of the DUST OF THE 
GROUND, and breathed into his nostrils THE BREATH OF 
LIFE, and Man became A LIVING Sou L *. 

By the words the breath of * life , and a living Soul 
which discriminate LIFE in man from LIFE in brutes, we 
are not to understand immateriality simply; since all 
animals, as we say, have this in common ; but the CON 
TINUANCE of life after the separation of the compound, 
in virtue of Man s rationality, which making him respon 
sible for his Actions, may, according to the different 
parts in God s MOKAL economy, require that separate 

But now, if it should be asked, Why this complete 
exposition of Man s Nature was not given before, in the 
first mention of his Creation, but reserved for the second, 
two very important reasons may be assigned. 

1 . Had the Historian given it in the first account of 
Man s Creation, it would have had the appearance of 
distinguishing Man, in his natural or physical capacity, 
from other Animals ; whereas, in this capacity, there is> 
in truth, no difference between them. Since the very 
argument which evinceth the immateriality of the human 
soul, evinceth the immateriality of the brutal. Yet, to 
have left no mark of distinction between them when there 
was one, had been a very faulty omission in the History 
of Religion. Moses, therefore, with admirable address, 
hath pointed out the difference, when he tells us, that 
Man was created in the image of God f, i. e. endowed 
with the faculty of REASON. 

2. Secondly, the place, which points out this difference, 
is made to serve for an introduction to the History of the 

free gift of immortality. And a better cannot be con 
ceived than that which teacheth us, that the Subject on 
* Gen. ii. 7. f Gen. i. 37. 



whom this gift was bestowed, is, by the immateriality of 
his physical Nature, capable of enjoying it ; and, by the 
freedom of his reasonable Nature, accountable for the 
abuse of it. So much is observed in honour of that 
exquisite knowledge with which the sacred Writer was 

Having thus explained Mans PHYSICAL Nature, we 
come to the consideration of his MORAL; which, hitherto, 
we have but just hinted at, in shewing him to be respon 
sible for his Actions. Now, as this responsibility is the 
great Principle on which all Religion, or rather the Sanc 
tion of Religion, is founded ; and as it is of the utmost use 
in our enquiry concerning the true nature of the GOSPEL ; 
to understand what Mode of Religion it was to which 
Adam became subject, when he first rose from the forming 
hand of his Creator, we must recollect what hath been 
said concerning the TIME of his Creation, which, we shall 
now see, will stand us in good stead to determine this 
important question. 

1 . For from thence it will appear, that the Man and 
Woman, the Male and Female, were not immediately, 
on their Creation, put into Paradise ; but had a State 
and Condition upon Earth preceding that supernatural 

That this first State of Man in the world at large was 
not only prior to, but different from, his State in Para 
dise, the Sacred Writer clearly intimates : God (says he) 
on the creation of Man (male and female) blessed them y 
and said unto them., Be fruitful and multiply, and RE- 
PLENISH THE EARTH, and subdue it *. 

But when, after they were put in possession of PARA 
DISE, and the gift of immortality was there bestow r ed 
upon them, they were not (immediately at least) to re- 
plctiish the Earth at large ; but to replenish Paradise 
only : from whence, as they increased, their Colonies, 
perhaps, might be sent out to inhabit for a time, the 
other parts of the Earth (not, then, a vale of misery and 
death}, before they replenished the Regions of the Blessed. 

2. Again, at the Creation of the first Pair God said* 
Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed, which 


* Gen. i. 28. 

R 2 


in which is the seed of a Tree, yielding seed, "TO YOU IT 
SHALL BE FOR MEAT *. But when God put them into 
Paradise, he said, Of every Tree, in the Garden thou 
may est freely eat\ but of the TREE of the Knowledge 
of gotid and evil, THOU SHALT NOT EAT OF IT f. 

Hence it appears that Adam and Eve had a MORAL 
STATE, or \vere engaged to some Religion, before their 
Paradisaical life commenced, and different from it ; for 
in the first, there was no restraint of food ; in the second, 
there was. Whether the Religion, to which they were 
first subject, was that we call NATURAL, as being the 
result and conclusion of that Reason with which, at our 
Creation, we were endowed ; or whether it was that we 
call REVEALED, or supernaturally taught by God, we 
can only learn from Scripture. And Scripture teacheth, 
even by its Silence, that it was NATURAL RELIGION to 
which the first Pair were subject, from their Creation to 
their entrance into Paradise. 

For Scripture hath this advantage over human compo 
sitions, that it teacheth as precisely by what it doth not 
say, as by what it doth. In what concerns Religion, 
there is nothing, either in its silence or in its enunciation, 
that is ambiguous. 

To give an instance, for the better illustration of the 
matter before us. SPEECH might be acquired naturally, 
as well as RELIGION. In this they agreed : In one 
thing they differed Human Reason, which was able to 
instruct in both, teacheth Religion, or our duty to our 
Maker, and to each other, almost instantaneously : But 
Speech, in the same School, is learnt only by slow degrees. 
So that Man must have continued long in that brutal 
State, to which the rest of the Animal Creation were, 
from their very Nature, condemned. Yet it is hard to 
suppose, that the all-gracious Author of our Being would 
leave his Favorite Creature, Man, whom he had endowed 
with superior gifts and prerogatives above the rest, to 
struggle with this mute and distressful condition, from 
which, unaided reason could only, by slow degrees, in a 
length of time, set him free. But this uncertainty holy 
Scripture removes ; by the information it hath given us, 
that God himself, and not human Reason, was our first 
* Gen. i. 2Q. f Gen, ii. 16, 17. 



Schoolmaster in the rudiments of Speech. The text says, 
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every 
beast ofthcjidd, and every fowl of the air, and BROUGHT 


Here we have the most natural and familiar image of a 
Teacher and a learner; where the abilities of the Scholar 
are tried before they are assisted. From this text, we 
likewise learn, that no more than the first rudiments of 
Speech were thus, in an extraordinary manner, imparted 
to Adam for his present and immediate use. He was 
assisted in affixing names to sensible things, with which 
he was to be perpetually conversant. And this was suf 
ficient to put his reasonable nature in a train to advance 
itself above the torpid silence of the brutal. Thus far 
was man taught of God. But the further extent and 
improvement of speech, particularly in its giving names 
to more abstract ideas, was left to man alone ; which 
names, as his necessities required, he would invent, and 
treasure up for use. 

This difference, in the two acquirements of Speech and 
Religion, both of which natural Reason was able to teach, 
but not with equal facility or speed, shews why God in 
terfered in the one case, and why he did not interfere in 
the other ; and consequently why the Historian s enun 
ciation was necessary in the first instance ; and why his 
SILENCE, in the second, was sufficient to give equal evi 
dence to what was the truth. 

This (which indeed concerns the subject in hand) ap 
pears still clearer from the following considerations : 

i. The PENTATEUCH is a professed history of God s 
communication with, and extraordinary dispensations to, 
Man, from the placing him in PARADISE to the giving 
of the LAW. We have seen, that Man was subject to 
a Religion, prior to that Will of God revealed to him 
when he entered Paradise. Now, were the State, under 
which he lived before the Paradisaical, the State of re 
vealed Religion, the Nature of the Mosaic history re 
quired that some account should have been given of it. 

* Gn. ii. 19, 20, 

R 3 But 


But no account is given. We conclude, therefore, that 
Man, on his Creation, came under the law of NATURAL 
RELIGION-, or was, as the Apostle emphatically ex 
presses it a Law unto himself *. On this supposition, 
we can easily account for the Silence of the Historian, 
His Theme was REVEALED RELIGION ; and to pre 
serve the memory of such a Dispensation, it was neces 
sary that the various modes of it should be recorded. 
But the memory of Natural Religion was preserved by 
an earlier Recorder, REASON : who wrote it, and con 
tinues to write it, in the minds of all Men. Of this ori 
ginal Record, Moses hath given sufficient intimation, 
where, speaking of Man s nature, he tells, that it was 
created in the LIKENESS OF GOD: meaning (as hath 
been shewn) that Man was endowed with REASON. Now 
such a LIKENESS implies his knowledge of, and confessed 
subjection to, NATURAL LAW OR RELIGION. 

2. But it is not only from the Silence of the Historian, 
as to what preceded Man s migration into Paradise, but 
likewise from what he expressly tells its followed on 
Man s situation there, that we conclude, he was from his 
creation to this time, under the guidance of the LAW OF 
NATURE only: For the REVEALED LAW of God to 
Man in Paradise, after bestowing upon him the free gift: 
of immortality, consists but of one positive Command, 
as the condition of this accumulated blessing : a condi 
tion very different from any of those which Natural 
Religion requires to entitle Man to God s favour : This 
plainly implies, that Adam, by the Light of Reason, 
knew already the rest of God s Will, with which, as 
Moral Governor of the World, he had irradiated the 
breasts of all Men. Otherwise, had this light been so 
dim as to give no clear direction for his duty, we must 
conclude, that the all-gracious Creator would have ex 
pressly delivered to him a complete Code or Digest of 
Natural Law, at the time when he enounced this re 
vealed Command m Paradise. And that he did not give 
any such, the Silence of the Historian, in a work whose 
Nature would not dispense with such an omission, is a 
certain proof. 

To sum up all in a word Man s moral State, under 
* Rom, ii. 14, 



the revealed Will of God, began on his admission into 
Paradise. From which truth it follows, that, from his 
-Creation to that time, he was under the guidance of 

And here let me just make an observation (which it 
would be a fault to neglect, though it be but one of the 
numerous instances of divine art in this inspired Writer) 
concerning the different terms employed by him in de 
fining Man as the subject of Natural Religion, from 
those he uses in defining him as the subject of the Re 
vealed. In the first case, Man is characterised by that 
distinctive quality of his being made in the likeness of 
God*, or being endowed with REASON ; the faculty 
which denotes him the subject of Natural Religion ; that 
Religion which teacheth the rewards and punishments of 
Heaven INDEFINITELY. In the second case, he is dis 
tinguished as a compound Being, made of the dust of the 
earth and the breath of life f , which marks him out for 
the adequate subject of that other Religion, denouncing 
death -and immortality DEFINITELY. 

To proceed. This natural State of Man, antecedent 
to the Paradisaical, can never be too carefully kept in 
mind, nor too precisely explained ; since it is the very 
KEY, or CLEW (as we shall find in the progress of this 
work) which is to open to us, and to lead us through, all 
the recesses and intimacies of the last, and completed, 
Dispensation of God to Man ; a Dispensation long be-* 
come intricate and perplexed, by men s neglecting to dis 
tinguish these two States or Conditions ; which, as we 
say, if not constantly kept in mind, the GOSPEL can 
neither be well understood nor reasonably supported. 

So terribly mistaken have those good Men been, who 
imagined, that the best way of serving the cause of Reve 
lation was to deny the very being and existence of 
Natural Religion. 

But if some have allowed too little to this Religion, 
.there are others, and those no declared enemies of Re 
velation, who have ascribed a great deal too much to it. 
Systems which, however different, are yet alike injurious 
to the great Truth they profess to defend. 

The one, by annihilating Natural Religion, cuts away 

* Gen. i, 16. f Gen. ii. 7. 

E 4 the 


the ground and foundation of CHRISTIANITY ; the other, 
by giving to Natural Religion certain Doctrines of 
Perfection, to which it cloth not pretend, overturns the 

Having thus shewn that Man lived, at first, under the 
guidance of Natural Religion-, let us now consider more 
precisely, but with all possible brevity, What this Reli 
gion is, and what it teacheth. 

If my ideas, whether innate or acquired, do not mis 
lead me, the whole of it may be comprised in this 
" That Man, endowed with REASON and FREEDOM OF 
WILL, is a Moral Agent, and accountable for his con 
duct to his Maker ; who hath given him, for his rule of 
Life,* a LAW, discoverable by the one Faculty, and ren 
dered practicable by the other. That the faithful Ob 
servers of this LAW God will reward, and the wilful 
Transgressors of it he will punish ; but that, on repent- 
ance and amendment, he will pardon, and be reconciled 
to, Offenders." 

This SANCTION of Natural Religion, evident as it is, 
hath been brought into question, and disputed, not only 
by those who reject our idea of such a moral System, but 
by those who contend for it. 

The first have said, that we know so little of God s 
government of the universe, that it is hazardous to affirm, 
that Man hath any claim at all to Revvard. The other, 
that it is still more hazardous to affirm, that REPENTANCE 
will certainly restore bad Men to the benefit of this Claim, 
if, before their transgression, they had any such. 

Yet the Truths (thus boldly brought in question) are 
founded on this clear Principle, "That, taking in the 
whole of a good Man s existence, God will bestow upon 
him more of happiness than of misery," To deny this, 
will tend to confound our distinct ideas of a good and 
of an evil Governor of the World. Nor are these 
truths, thus founded, at all shaken by our ignorance of 
God s government of the universe. I apprehend, that 
the supposed force of the objection arise th from Men s 
not rightly distinguishing between God s PHYSICAL and 
MORAL Government ; nor seeing how the consequences 
of that distinction directs our judgment to decide of the 
evidence in religious matters, and particularly of the 



force of this objection. I will not here repeat my rea 
soning on tiiis subject, which the reader may find already 
delivered in pages 221, 222, and 223 of the Intro- 
fusion, and will see repeated, occasionally, hereafter. 
In behalf of these repetitions, had I added one more, on 
the present occasion, I should have no need to apologize : 
for as often as an old argument supports a Truth, newly 
attacked, the use of that argument, on such an occasion, 
cannot be called a repetition of it, but a different appli 
cation of it to a new question. And every different ap 
plication will give additional credit to the solidity of the 
argument, when it is seen how many various purposes it 
may be made to serve, and how many various Truths it 
is fitted to illustrate. This is one of those FRUITFUL 
ARGUMENTS, frequently to be met with in this Work, 
which I have enforced again and again, in the support of 
some new Truth ; and which, I make no doubt, a less 
attentive Reader has as often condemned for a repetition 
of the same thing. 

From this Argument, so referred to, as it lies in the 
Introduction, we may safely conclude, that a good man 
hath a claim to reward: And this, I think, -Religionists, 
consulting no more than their natural ideas, have generally 
agreed in; and yet have generally concurred to deny that 
other part of the proposition (though it stand upon the 
same Principle) which teacheth, that God will re-establish 
the repentant Sinner in his original claim to divine favour. 

This may seem unaccountable ; but there is a secret 
in it, which will deserve to be explained, for more rea 
sons than one ; but at present, principally for the sake 
of removing this difficulty. 

The truth is, those Divines, who doubted of this re- 
establishment, laboured under a groundless apprehension, 
that to allow the Doctrine of reconciliation, on sincere 
repentance alone, might tend to supersede the necessity of 
the Christian Revelation ; which they erroneously sup 
posed taught nothing concerning a future state but what 
was discoverable, and had been actually discovered, by 
the light of Nature : So that if natural Religion taught 
ONE means of Reconciliation, and Revelation taught 
ANOTHER, both could not be true. They, therefore, 
/ejected that, as false, which natural Religion was said to 



teach. And modern Unbelievers being under the like 
delusion, viz. tluit Natural Religion and revealed taught 
the same doctrine concerning a future state, reject, as 
false, that means of reconciliation which Revelation, 
pretends to have discovered. 

But we have bestowed our pains to little purpose, if, 
by this time, the attentive Reader doth not perceive, that 
the Rewards, taught by natural Religion, are very diffe 
rent in kind, as well as in degree, from those taught by 
the Revealed: However, it lie hath not yet been suffi 
ciently instructed in this important truth, the sequel of 
our Discourse, to which we are now hastening, will, we 
hope, give him entire satisfaction. 

I had said, and on the Authority of St. Paul himself, 
that natural Religion taught, that God Is a Rewarder of 
them that diligently seek him*. Now, from his being a 
Rewarder, which springs from his nature and attributes, 
I have ventured to found Man s claim to reward. 

But it may be asked, WHERE are those rewards to be 
expected, and of WHAT quality do they consist? 

To the lirst part of the question, 1 reply That, at 
\\hat time soever God s Providence hath been dispensed 
EQUALLY to the Sons of Adam, living under the direc 
tion of natural Laic, they could expect their reward onlv 
HERE. But, whenever they began to observe, that God s 
Providence was grown ux EQUAL, and that rewards and 
punishments were not regularly dispended here, they would 
look to have the disorder rectified HEREAFTER. But of 
this, more as we proceed. 

To the second part of the question, Of WHAT quality 
these rewards consist? I reply, We are taught to believe, 
they shall be abundant, as suited to that better state of 
existence to which they are reserved ; and as bestowed 
by an all-bountiful Master, to whose more intimate pre 
sence they shall be admitted : yet still bearing some 
adequate proportion to Man s merit and desert. 

If REASON, on the one hand, seems to revolt at the 
thoughts of everlasting Punishment] (for, as (rod is a 
Rewarder of the Good, we must conclude, the Apostle 
would have us infer, that he is a Punisher of the Bad ; 
since this exercise of his power over both Good and Bad, 

* Heb. xi. 6, 



stands on the same attributes of Goodness and Justice ;) 
If REASON, I say, doth, on the one hand, seem to revolt 
at everlasting Punishment, we must confess, that FANCY, 
on the other (even when full plumed by Vanity), hath 
scarce force enough to rise to the idea of infinite rewards. 
How the heart of Man came to conceive this to be an 
adequate retribution for his right conduct, during the 
short trial of his Virtue here, would be hard to tell, did 
we not know what Monsters PRIDE begot of old upon 
Pagan Philosophy ; and how much greater still these 
latter ages have disclosed, by the long incubation of 
School-divinity upon Folly. 

What hath been urged from natural reason, in support 
of this extravagant presumption, is so very slender, that 
it recoils as you inforce it. i. First, you say, " that 
the SOUL, the subject of these eternal rewards, being 
immaterial, and so therefore unaffected by the causes 
which bring material things to an end, is, by its nature, 
fitted for eternal rewards." This is an argument ad igno- 
rantiam, and holds no farther Because an immaterial 
Being is not subject to that mode of dissolution which 
affects material substances, you conclude it to be eternal. 
This is going too fast. There may be, and probably are, 
many natural causes, (unknown, indeed, to us,) whereby 
immaterial Beings come to an end. But if the nature of 
things cannot, yet certainly God can, put a period to 
such a Being, when it hath served the purpose of its 
Creation. Doth ANNIHILATION impeach that Wisdom 
and Goodness which was displayed when God brought it 

Other immaterial Beings there are (as hath been 
observed) who have the same natural security with man 
for their existence, of whose eternity we never dream; I 
mean the Souls of Brutes. But PRIDE, as the Poet ob 
serves, calls God unjust : 

" If MAN alone ingross not Heaven s high care; 

< Alone made perfect here, IMMORTAL there." 
Fanatics, indeed, both New and Old, have well provided 
for the proper eternity of the human Soul, by making it 
a part or portion of the substance of God himself*. 
But so blasphemous a fancy, all sober Christians, from the 
* &**. He [B] at the end of this Book, 



most early times to the present, have looked upon with 

However, let us (for argument s sake) allow the human 
Soul to be un peri? liable by nature, and secured in its 
.existence hy the unchangeable will of God: and see 
what will follow from thence. An infinite Reward for 
Virtue, during one moment of its existence, because 
Reason discovers that, by the Law of Nature, some 
lie ward is due ? By no means When God bath amply 
repaid us for the performance of our duty, will he be at 
a loss how to dispose of us for the long remainder of 
ETERNITY? May he not find new and endless employ 
ment for reasonable Creatures, to which, when properly 
discharged, new rewards, and in endless succession, will 
be assigned? Modest Reason seems to dictate this to the 
Followers of the Law of Nature. The flattering expe- 
dientof ETERNAL REWARDS, for Virtue here, was invented 
in the simplicity of early speculation, after it had fairly 
. brought men to conclude that the soul was immaterial. 


2. A second Argument, from the conviction it carries 
with it, I would recommend to the care arid protection 
of its Discoverers, the Pkttpnists and Poets \ namely, 
Men s LONGINGS AFTER iMMOR/j A LIT v, even in the 
state of Nature. These, say our Poetical Metaphysi 
cians. and Metaphysical Poets, are a proof that we shall 
obtain -what we long for ; since natural appetites were not 
given in vain. The foundation, on which this argument 
stands, is not, it must be confessed, quite void of all 
plausibility. The general appetite for GOOD was indeed 
given by Nature, to aid us in the easier and speedier 
attainment of it. But in this consists the sophistry of 
the reasoning Because the appetite for Good is essen 
tial in the constitution of every sensitive Being, it is con- 
. eluded, that we shall obtain the GREATEST GOOD which 
the Imagination can form, for the object of its wishes. 
And, to call this visionary Operator, Nature^ and not 
Fancy, will scarce mend the matter, if the noble Philo 
sopher* did not vilify his species, when he said, that 
She did not know how to keep a mean or measure |- The 
Phenomenon is easily explained. The PASSIONS were 
given to excite our Activity in the pursuit of Good: and 
* Bacon. t Mqdum tenere nescia est. 



the violence of such of them, as drive most impetuously 
to their end, will be apt to transgress the mean. But there- 
is another part as essential to our frame, which is REA 
SON"; and her office it is to keep the Passions within due 
bounds; then most apt to fly out, when pursued by that 
frightful Phantom, ANNIHILATION. And as the best 
security against this terror is the pledge of immortality 
we are too much in haste to inquire of Reason, Whether, 
indeed, NATURAL RELIGION hath given us this security. 
From all that hath been said, I would infer, that our 
appetites, or LONGINGS after good, were given us, not to 
lead the conclusions of Reason, but to be led by them, 
kst these LONGINGS should become extravagant. 

3. But the palmary argument is still behind. It is 
partly Physical, and partly Moral. " The merit of ser 
vice (say these Men) increases in proportion to the excel 
lence of that Being to whom our service is directed and 
becomes acceptable. An infinite Being, therefore, can 
dispense no rewards but what are infinite. And thus the 
Virtuous Man becomes intitled to immortality. 

The misfortune is, that this reasoning holds equally on 
the side of the UNMERCIFUL DOCTORS, as they are 
called, who doom the Wicked to EVERLASTING PUNISH 
MENT. Indeed, were this the only discredit under which 
it labours, the mercile&s Doctors would hold themselves 
little concerned. But the truth is, the Argument from 
infinity proves just nothing. To make it of any force, 
both the Parties should be infinite. This inferior emana 
tion of God s Image, MA NT, should either be supremely 
good or supremely bad, a kind of Deity or Devil. But 
these Reasoners, in their attention to the Divinity, over 
look the Humanity, which makes the decrease keep pace 
with the accumulation, till the rule of Logic, that the 
conclusion follows the weaker part, comes in, to end the 

This view of things, which presents to us the reward, 
held out by the Law of Nature, clears up, at the same 
time, the more disputed question, concerning the efficacy 
of repentance alone, to reinstate us in God s FAVOUR; 
and shews, that this doctrine of Natural Religion is 
very consistent with what Revealed Religion teacheth, 
concerning RECONCILIATION, on repentance : since the 



rewards, promised by each Religion, being totally diffe 
rent, they may reasonably, when forfeited, have different 
means appointed for their recovery. Hence it is, that, 
by the Jirst, simple repentance, we say, is deemed suffi 
cient; and by the latter, some ATONEMENT may be rea 
sonably required, together with repentance. 

On the whole of what has been said concerning 
Natural Religion, we see, That REASON reclaims 
against the pride of such of its votaries, who expect 
eternal rewards, when that Religion only promiseth very 
ample ones. 

Come we now to the Condition of Man under RE 
VEALED RELIGION. For God (as we must needs con 
clude) having tried Adam in the STATE OF NATURE, 
and approved of the good use he had made of his free 
will under the direction of that light, advanced him to a 
superior station in Paradise. How LONG, before this 
remove, Man had continued subject to Natural Religion 
alone, we can only guess. But of this we may be assured, 
that it was some considerable time before the Garden 
of Eden could naturally be made fit for his reception. 
Since Moses, when he had concluded his History of the 
Creation, and of God s rest on, and sanctification of, the 
seveJith day*, proceeds to speak of the condition of this 
new world, in the following terms: And God created 
every living plant of thejield, before it was in the earth, 
and every herb of the Jield before it grew ; for the 
Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the Earth f. 
Which seem plainly to intimate, that when the seeds of 
vegetables had been created on the third day, they were 
left to Nature, in its ordinary operations, to mature by 
Sun and showers. So that when, in course of time, Para 
dise was become capable of accommodating its inhabi 
tants, they were transplanted thither. " And the Lord 
" took the Man, and put him into the Garden of Eden 
" And the Lord God commanded the Man, saying, 
" Of every Tree of the Garden thou mayest freely eat; 
" but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou 
" shalt not eat : for in the day that thou eatest thereof 
" thou shalt surely die J." In this manner, was the first 
extraordinary revelation of God s Will, or what we call 
* Gen.ii. 2,3. t Gi.ii, 4, 5. J Gen.ii. 15. 



REVEALED RELIGION, added to, or more properly built 
upon, the Religion of Nature, which continued to be 
the foundation of ail God s extraordinary Dispensations 
throughout the whole course of his moral Government 
of Man. 

Well! Adam disobeyed the Command. He ate, and 
became (as he was first created) MORTAL. And lest 
(as the Historian says) he should put forth his hand, and 
take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever *, 
he is driven out of Paradise, and sent hack again to his 
former State ; the subject of natural Religion. And in 
this subjection lie continued till the giving of the LAW. 

From tliis account \ve learn, that, had Adam not dis 
obeyed the Command, he would have lived for ever, 
exempt from the present condition of mortality ; since 
tills return to it was the penalty of his transgression. 

And lest we should make a wrong inference from what 
we read, that immortal life was Man s natural claim from 
the time of his creation ; and not a free gift bestowed 
upon him on his entrance into Paradise; the Historian 
tells us of the means employed to exclude him from the 
THEE OF LIFE, which conferred immortality on the 
Eater. The ideas which this language conveys are, in 
deed, allegorical , but they inform us of this, and of 
nothing but this, that immortal life was a thing extra 
neous to our Nature ; and not put into our paste or 
composition, when first fashioned by the forming hand 
of the Creator f. 

If it be asked, why Moses did not record this free gift 
of immortality, lost by the first Adam, in as open and 
clear terms as the second Adam proclaimed the recovery 
of it ? the reason will be given, more at large, hereafter. 
At present, I shall just observe, (though, perhaps, a 
little prematurely) that the several MESSENGERS of God s, 
several Revelations had each his proper office to dis 
charge. It was the office of JESUS to bring life and 
immortality to light, or to promulge the Doctrine of it 
in open day. It was MOSES S office to record the loss, and 
TO SUPPLY THE WANT OF IT , in that Dispensation 

* Gen. iii. as. 

f Gen. ii. 7. And the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground, 
ike. compared with Gen. iii. 19. 
t See the Subject of the DIVINE LEGATION. 



which was committed to his Charge. Pie could go no 
farther than just to hint at a recovery, in covert and ob- 
scure expressions. 

On these different and respective grounds then stood, 
and must for ever stand, NATURAL and .REVEALED 

The first teacheth an abundant reward for virtue ; the 
other promised a blessed immortality on the observance 
of a positive command. 

This distinction, carefully kept in mind, will reflect 
great lights upon both Religions. As, by the neglect of it 
the Mosaic Dispensation hath lain, for many ages, in 
volved in obscurities ; and the Christian is become sub 
ject to inexplicable difficulties. This will be seen as we 

At present let it suffice to observe, i. That this 
account of the Paradisaical State supports our Capital 
Assertion, that Natural Religion neither teacheth nor 
promiseth eternal Rewards. While it is supposed to do 
so, nothing can be conceived more discrediting of REVE 
LATION ; for it will force us to conclude, that God arbi 
trarily annexed Salvation, or eternal life, to one condition 
by the Law of Grace, and to another condition by the 
Law of Nature. This observation will have its weight 
with those plain men, who allow, to the two connected 
Laws, the common privilege of explaining one another. 

2. It enables us to see clearly into another reason, why 
the condition of immortality was the observance of a 
positive command] and not the performance of moral 
duty at large. For immortal life being a free-gift to 
which no man had a claim by nature, it might be given 
on whatever condition best pleased the Benefactor. And 
the observance of a positive duty was very fitly pre 
ferred to a moral] as it best marked out the nature of 
the benefit, which was of grace and not of debt. 

3. But there is still another reason, (arising from the 
moral order of things,) why this free-gift, if it were fit 
or necessary to be bestowed on condition, should rather 
be annexed to a positive than a moral duty. No one, I 
suppose, was ever so wild as to imagine, that had Adam 
not eaten of the FORBIDDEN FRUIT, he would have 
been intitled to immortality, unless he had likewise 



observed the dictates of the MORAL LAW, which natural 
Religion enjoins : the habitual violation of which, unre- 
pented of, every reflecting man sees, must have deprived 
him of immortality, as inevitably as. the transgression of 
the positive Command. The reason is evident. Man living 
under the Law of Nature, when the free gift of immor 
tality was bestowed on him, his previous qualification 
to fit him for the acceptance of the free gift, must needs 
be some reward ; or,., in other words, his having a claim 
to that REWARD which natural Religion bestows. Now 
nothing but the observance oi moral duties could intitle 
him to some reward. The consequence is, that the ob 
servance of moral duties was a condition annexed by na 
ture, and appropriated to that reward which follows the 
favour of God in general ; and so could not be made 
the condition of a different thing ; viz. the free gift of 
immortality , which was founded in a prior capacity of 
reward ; and this capacity acquired by tiie performance 
of moral duties. 

These things give the curious observer such exalted 
ideas of divine Wisdom, in the order and course of God s 
Dispensations to Man. that (transported with the idea) 
I have anticipated a Truth, which, though it be of present 
use to confirm what hath been already said concerning 
the separate states, and different genius of Natural and 
Revealed Religion, yet belongs more properly to another 
place ; where I shall employ it to remove a difficulty 
which hath so long entangled, that it hath at length dis 
credited the most rational as well as essential Principle 
of Christianity.. 

In the mean time, we see, to how little purpose Di 
vines have fatigued themselves, and others, to give a 
.reason, Why a positive and not a moral duty was made 
the condition of immortal life. In the course of which 
enquiry, some have been so extravagant as to assert, that 
the sequestered state of the first Pair made the observance 
of a moral duty an improper condition to be annexed to 
this free gift ; seeing, in that state, opportunities were 
wanting to exercise them. But, if we divide moral duty, 
as is commonly done, into the three separate Branches, 
of Divine, Personal, and Social, \\e shall find that Adam 
had an equal occasion to practise the two first, as if sent 

VOL. VI. S into 


into a work! filled with Inhabitants ; and the most me- 
yitorious part of the third, as soon as ever he was blessed 
R-ith a Help meet for htm *. 

The truth is, the- State of Natural Religion, under 
which Adam lived till he was put into Paradise* unob 
served by Divines ; ami the mistaken ideas entertained of 
it, by them,, when they had observed it, and distinguished 
it from the Reraited, betrayed them into these absurdities, 
and gave- birth (as we shall see hereafter) to a thousand 
errors, whidi have obscured and deformed the glories of 
that last great and best Work in God s moral government., 



From the account here given, God s JUSTICE, with 
regard to the effects of Adam s transgression ujxm his 
Posted cy, is fully declared. Adam fell, and forfeited the 
free g{ft of immortality hi the dm/ that thou cutest 
thereof, tlmu. xhalt xurely .die t. lie returned to his former 
state in which he was created, subject to mortality ; that 
death which follows the separation of soul and body. It 
k astonishing that any oth-er death should have been un 
derstood by those words |, when the very; sentence fit 
comkmnation itself confines us to the sense here give- . 
..... //; the sic eat of thy face (says- God) sh-a-U thou eat 
bread, ti/l r $\iQ\j HKTURN UNTO THK GROUND : for out 
of it uv/sf thou taken: J or dust thou art, and UNTO DUST 


In this State, Adam begat a Posterity, which na 
turally became sharers in his original condition of Mor 
tality |j. And, Were they injured in not being made 
"partakers of a gift never bestowed upon them : Absurd! 

y were If "ft and continued in possession- of all the 
Rights inherent in. their original nature; and would hav^ 

*. Gen. ii. 18. f Gen. ii. 17. 

See note |C] :it the end of this Book. Gen. iih 19. 

: . jj * ; By. fhf Air. Locke) some men. und eratciiiit ettilkss for- 

;* tii-jnts in, llelijire. But it seems a strange way of undarbtandiiig a 

* Lu\v r (which rcqiures the plainest and directest words), that by 

" d jal/i should be meant, eternal life in misery* Can" any one be sup- 

" pui-:- i ti, by H Law, which says, for felony t/iou shalt surely- die not 

** that, h.c sJionld lose his life, but be kept alive in perpetual and ex- 

: ft qi.irit*- Ui: rnen-ts-? And would any one think hiinseif tairly dealt 

.". with thtit was so used?" Ueusoaubleuess of Christianity, vol. ji. 



had the benefit of the FREE GIFT, had not he, to whom it 
was given, and from whom they were descended, forfeited 
it before they came into Being*. What Physical con 
tagion they contracted at their birth, either of body or of 
mind, is of little use to enquire ; since, however Man 
came by his Malady, his cure is one and the same. 

So good reason had St. Paul not to think he impeached 
the Justice of God, when ho said, that DEATH reigned 
from Adam to Moses, even over those who had NOT 


sion t, i. e. over those who died before they came to the 
knowledge of good and evil. Now, as the death ^ here 
mentioned, could be only Physical, though total ; the 
death spoken of, in the same sentence, as denounced on 
the rest of mankind, who had sinned after tJie similitude 
of- Adams transgression, must, consequently, be Physical 

Thus both infants and adults falling under the very 
letter of the sentence denounced on Adam, we see how 
God s justice is made apparent. 

Another important truth emerges from this account of 
the FALL, viz. that this part of the Mosaic History is 
NO ALLEGORY, as hath been commonly imagined. The 
root of which conceit, as indeed of many other extrava 
gancies that have deformed the rational simplicity of the 
Christian Faith, hath been the confounding the distinct 
and different sanctions of natural and revealed Religion 
with one another. For Divines, as we said, having mis 
taken these sanctions to be the same, namely IMMOR 
TALITY, they were led to conclude, though against 
the express words of the text, that Adam s transgression 
was a breach of some precept of the MORAL LAW, 
and, consequently, that the account which represented 
it as the violation of a positive Command, was an 
ALLEGORY : and being once got upon this fairy-ground, 
every man had it in his power to pursue, as he liked, 
the favourite Vision, which he himself had raised from 
an Allegory left unexplained by the sacred Writer. 
Numberless have been these monsters of the Irnagina- 

* See what is said concerning the difference between .the forfeiture 
of natural and adventitious Rights. Di v . Leg, B. v. 5. 
f iicn\. v. 14. See ako note [l)J at the end of this Book, 

s 2 tion. 


tion. But a late Allegorist of the history of the Fall hath, 
so discredited tlie trade, by his absurd and abominable 
fancies, fit only to be told by himself*, that were it not 
for the account which both believers and unbelievers find 
in this commodious method of evading difficulties, we 
might hope at length to get free of the dishonour of 
having so long abused a rational mode of information. 

We have shewn what the last bettering Writer hath 
i.nvented, to render the abuse odious ] let us now see 
what the last unbelieving Writer hath offered to render 
the abuse ridiculous, lie assures us, that the Scripture 
account of the FAJ.L /.? a MERE ALLEGORY, in the man 
ner of the Eastern Fables, tignifying that man rcasformed 
to a state of happiness and perfection, which lie enjoyed as 
/ .v/A a* lie con tiuiu :d innocent, but lost and j orj cited it by 
fd Oidng his tysfs aiidpassiotiSt in opposition to the will of 
hi* Creator ; and became miserable as soon as he became a 
wilful ami habit nal dnmr\. 

Here we seethe learned Doctor throws aside his usual 
reserve, and preaches up rank DEISM without disguise ; 
while he makes the FALL from, and RESTORATION to, 
life, as taught in the Old and New Testament, to be no 
thing more than- an Emblem of the frail Condition of Man,, 
to whom God had given the LAV/ OF NATURE for his. 
only guide. On this principle lie attacks Dr. Water- 
land s and Bishop Sherlock s explanations of the story of 
the FALL. But the force of his reasoning (as hath been 
the good fortune of most deistical Writers) springs not 
from the truth of his own notions, but from the futility of 
his Adversary s. " Pray tell us/ (says the learned 
Doctor, with that vivacity which he never restrained, 
when he had his Adversary at advantage,) " What is it 
" we Christians are obliged to believe of it? [the story 
" of the Fall. ] Must we believe it to be all an Allegory ? 
" No. It is the allegorical interpretation that has drawn 
" all this clamour from me, of weakening the authority 
" of Moses and favouring infidelity. Must we believe 
" it to be all literal? No. We are not allowed to do 
* that, since there is certainly much mystery in it. What 
11 then are we to do ? Why we are to consider it as 

* See the Memoirs of the Life of Mr. \V. \Vhiston, vol. i. p. 339. 
f Dr. Middk ton s Works, 410. vol. ii. p. 131. and voLiii.. p, 199. 

" neither 


" neither fact nor fable ; neither literal nor allegorical ; 
" to interpret one sentence liter ally, the next allegon- 
" calli] ; the third again literally ; and so on to the 
" end of the chapter ; which, like the very Serpent 
" it treats of, is all over spotted and speckled ; here with 
" letter, there with mystery ; and sometimes, with a dash 
" of both *." 

This, on a supposition (the truth of which, both th6 
Deist and the Believer took for granted) that the Mosaic 
account of the FALL was an ALLECOFIV, hath its weight. 
But -none at all, on the supposition, whose truth I have 
endeavoured to evince, that the Mosaic account is a 
HISTORY -OF FACT, and not, as the learned Doctor pre 
tends, A MERE ALLEGG-RY; interlarded, indeed, as tha 
undent Histories of greatest weight have always been, 
with strong figurative expressions, as well allegorical as 
metaphorical. In such a kind of composition, the best 
rules of interpretation not only justify the rational Critic 
in understanding some expressions literally, and others 
alkgoricalhf, but necessarily require his observance of this 
rule. To tfo what the learned Doctor requires of him 
To stick throughout, either to the letter or tlicJ/gHre, 
would betray much ignorance of the genius of ancient 
literature. When Adam is said to have eaten of for 
bidden fr-iti<t y and hrad to lurce committed ichvruiom, 
Do these phrases (used by the same Historian in his 
History of the Fall, and afterwards in the History of the 
Jewish Dejection) make one more an ALLEGORY than 
the other? Are not boiii narratives of facts f lgnra icely 
adorned? the first, to denote Adams trau^- c^ wn of a 
positive Command; and the -other, to signity th^^-jl ^lion 
of the Israelites into Idolatry. 

The cold raillery, therefore, of our learned Doctor, 
while he considers the Mosaic Account of the FALL, as 
neither fact nor fable, -neither literal nor ctttcgorictt!, but 
to he sometimes interpreted one way, wmet lines anoihcr - 
might, for his credit, have been sptuod; as imopuhg 
us of -natking but his inattention to, or i yiorance of, 
literary composition, as it was in its primeval state; 
.early formed, and still continuing to exist, amo igst Peo- 
pie undisciplined by arts and poiibued mnaners. 

* Sec tke Doctor s Deduce of his Letter to Waterland. 

.5 The 


The truth is, our Critic in his censure, and those learned 
Divines, in their defence, have equally confounded two 
distinct Species of Writing with one another; that is to 
say, an ALLEGORY with a real HISTORY ornamented 
with metaphorical and allegoric colouring. The Di 
vines, to serve their .occasions, did it, either wittingly or 
inadvertently ; and the learned Doctor, to serve his, 
either followed their example or imitated their practice. 
These Divines had observed, that preceding Commen 
tators on the Bible had, occasionally, in the narrative 
parts, jumped from the literal to the allegoric seme, and 
r> backward and forward to the end of the Chapter, be 
cause they found, that where the language was full of 
figurative terms, it was reasonable and necessary so to 
do. Their error was, in supposing they might do the 
same, in what they believed to be an ALLEGORY. On 
the other hand, our Doctor saw the absurdity of this prac 
tice in an Allegory ; but his error was, in supposing it to 
be equally absurd to do the same in a. figurative narra 
tion of fact. 

And what occasioned the common mistake of both 
parties was, their having (as we say) confounded these 
two species of Co. n position with one another ; which 
they would never nave done, had they but considered, 
that the end of an ALLEGORY is to hide, and the pur 
pose of allegorical., that is figurative expressions, only 
to ornament. 

But, as the History of the Fall is, in Dr. Middleton s 
sense, a MERE ALLEGORY, and as his MORAL of the 
Fable tends to reduce the whole Doctrine of the Gospel 
to MERE DMSM ; I shall now endeavour to shew, from 
the ver?/ gcwits of Antiquity, that his Moral is not of 
the nature of th >se which the most early times loved to 
disguise under f hat cover. 

It is, in the learned Doctor s opinion, A MERE ALLE 
GORY, hi tilt manner of the Ea-st em Fables, signifying, that 
Man was formed to a state of happiness and perfection ; 
which he enjoyed as long an he continued innocent, but lost 
and forfeited it by following his lusts and passions , and 
so became miserable. 

The truth of his idea, of its being A MERE ALLEGORY^ 
hath been examined already. But this is .not the whole 

12 Of 


.of bis idea : It is, if you will bclieye him, in the MAX- 

An observation that betrays his ignorance both of 
Eastern Fables and Eastern Truth*. The Fables of the 
Ancients, whether of the East or West, were invented, as 
I have shewn elsewhere, for this end, and for no other, 
iiamelj^jojjide from the People, tinder that cover, such 
Truths as were above the People s capacity to compre 
hend ; or were judged inexpedient, for the sake of public 
-utility, thai they should know. This Veil, however, their 
AVise Men were able to penetrate; and so could benefit 
themselves of all the Truth conveyed under it ; and the 
Public, of just so much as was judged expedient for 
them to be, made acquainted with. 

But what pretence is there to say, that either of these 
-causes of concealment had any place in the MORAL, 
which the Doctor is pleased to tell us is conveyccTuntIe.r 
the fable of the Fall. The Moral contains a Truth of 
the utmost clearness, and most general use ; whose pub 
lication could be of no possible disservice to Society, <*r 
-Jbe abused by one single individual in it. 

On the other hand, if, instead of this MORAL, of A 
simple lapse from Innocence to guilt, we believe that Jesus 
and his Apostles have rightly interpreted the Mosaic 
account of the FALL, where they inform us of the spe 
cific nature of the loss which Aclarn sustained thereby ; 
and ijpirom the .nature and course of God s Dispensa 
tions, we see the fitness of its remaining a Mystery for 
many ages, that J\lystery which (the Apostle telis us) 
was hid from ages and generations, bat was at length 
made manifest to the Saints * ; if this, I say, were the 
ease, then, indeed, though the Doctor s Moral required 
none of this Cover to his MI-IRE ALLEGORY : yet such a 
Cover very well suited the History of Moses ; and justi 
fied the interpretation of the Apostles. 

Thus the POSITIVE COMMAND, whatever it specifi 
cally was, is contained in the words of not eating of the 
Fruit of the tree of good and evil the TEMPTER, THE 
VIL BEING, is shadowed under the Serpent and the 
CONDEMNATION TO DEATH, by Adam s return to his 
first state of MORTALITY. 

* Col. i. *s. 

s 4 Having 


Having thus cleared the revealed Doctrine of the 
FALL from the absurdity of this deistical interpretation, 
I now go on with my Subject. 

Man, having forfeited the free gift of Immortality, is 
driven out of Paradise*, and returned back to the state 
and condition in which he was created, a Subject only 
of NATURAL RELIGION. With tiiis difference, that, 
before his entrance into Paradise, he was altogether ig 
norant of the extent of his finite duration : on his expul 
sion from thence, he might learn, from the terms of his 
Sentence, that the execution of it, by DEATH, was at no 
great distance. In the sweat of thij faceshalt thou cat 
bread, till thou return unto the ground , for cut of it 
wast thou taken : for dust thou art, and unto dust shall 
thou return *. 

But when we speak of the two Religions, natural and 
revealed, we must distinguish (in our use of the term, 
REVELATION) between a System oi revealed Religion, 
and an occasional Communication of the divine Will to 
Man, for his conduct on particular points, or for his 
comfort in general, when the course of God s moral go 
vernment required that he should, from time to time, have 
intimations given to him, more or less obscurely, of the 
hi .Men purpose of Providence in his favour; and this, 
through various Dispensations, till, at the final comple 
tion of them, life -md immortality should be again brought 
to light and restored. These occasional Communications 
began with that contained in the Sentence denounced on 
the Serpent, or the EVIL ONE, that the seed cfthe Woman 
should bruise Ks hcad\ and that he should bruise its heel^ : 
And ended with that given by the mouth of Jacob, that 
the scepti*c should not depart JromJudah , nor a Lawgiver 
Jrom between his feet, until SIIILOH should come, to 
whom the gathering of the People should be ^. 

What followed these occasional Communications was 
that SECOND SYSTEM of Repealed Religion, delivered to 
the Posterity of Abraham, by Moses, preparatory to, the 
THIRD arid last, under the Reign or rule of Shiloh, or 
JESUS CHRIST, which took in and embraced the whole 
Posterity of Adam. 

* Gen, hi. 19. f Gen, iiu 15, J Gen. xlix, 10. 


So that, of Revelations, in the sense of REVEALED SYS- ^. <^ 
TEMS of RELIGION, there were but THREE : the ftrsf,^ 
o-iven to Adam when placed in Paradise ; the second, to 
the Posterity of Abraham, when going (under the ministry 
of Moses) to possess the promised Land ; and the third, 
promulged to all Mankind, by Jesus the Messiah. 

Ignorance, of this matter, made the Rabbins invent a 
fanciful System of Revealed lleligion, as given to the 80725 
of Noah, under the name of the SET EM PRECEPTS. So 
that it seemed proper just to hint at this distinction; 
which, for want of attending to, hath been the occasion 
of much error and mistake. 

We have now seen MAN under the two first States of 
God s Moral Government, the natural and the revealed ; 
and how, by his misconduct in the second, he was returned 
back again to the first ; in which he remained through 
out the long interval from Adam to Moses ; when, by 
this time, the NATURAL LAW was become so vitiated, 
and obscured, that all memory of the LAWGIVER was lost 
and forgotten. So that the knowledge of the one true 
God, on which all natural as well as revealed Religion j 
is founded, was, of necessity, to be REPUBLISIIED to 
the world, by MOSES, when he entered on his Mission ; 
who not only rekindled its extinguished flame, but, by the 
Dispensation committed to his care, in which the first 
Cause constantly and immediately directs all things, ob 
viated the like misfortune for the future. 

And as this Dispensation, called the LAW, being the 
prelude and preparation to the GOSPEL, whose Author 
was the promised MESSIAH, the Restorer of what was 
lost in Adam, couhi.fop only made intelligible by the pre 
vious knowledge of the cause and nature of that loss, 
therefore hath Moses studiously recorded that previous 

And here it will be proper to observe, that had Jesus 
teen only a MESSENGER sent from heaven, with no other 
purpose than to propagate a System of revealed Morals, 
or to republisk the Law of Nature, we can see no reason 
why LIFE AND IMMORTALITY might not have been pro- 
mulged by MOSES for the Sanction of the Law, as well as 
by JESUS CHRIST, who hath made it the peculiar Sanction 
of the Gospel ; and so both Doctrines, that of the true 



(* od, and of eternal life, have come from Heaven to 
gether. The SOCINIANS, and they who deny a RLDEMP- 
TION by the Atonement of a HEAL SACRIFICE on the 
Cross, wc.ukl do \\ell to reconsider this matter. But 
more of it in a fitter place, 

To proceed. By the Penalty inflicted on Adam, lie 
(\vith aii his Posterity) was again made mortal; that is, 
became rxTixcT, at the natural dissolution of the union 
between boul and Body. 

But ft&t distribution of reward and punishment, which 
Cod, under every mode of his Moral Government, makes, 
with supreme justice, either here in this world, or here 
after in another, was (when the sentence of DEATH was 
denounced on Man s transgression) at first made here iu 
this world, so long as he continued to be favoured with 
the administration of an equal or extraordinary Provi 
dence. Which, as we learn from the Mosaic History, 
continued from the FALL down to the time uhen Poly 
theism universally prevailed. For, when the World, by 
reason of the Vices and Corruptions of its Inhabitants, 
did not like to retain God in their know ledge, but changed 
the glory of the incorruptible God, into an Image made 
like ^ to corruptible ML/JI*, that first dispensation of Pro 
vidence was withdrawn. 

Yet, as soon as God had selected a chosen Race, and 
had separated it from the rest of Mankind, to place his 
name there, we see with astonishment, this equal Proyi- 
il-, :Ce rev ne in Judca ; for Man was still under. the 
or \oorn of death. And this existed, till repeated Idola 
tries, the crime which first caused the equal Providence 
to be withdrawn from the Nations at large, did at length 
deprive the chosen People, likewise, of their share of this 

And, by such time as they had invariably returned 
from their Apostasy to the pure worship of the God of 
their Fathers, the Coun-e of God s floral government 
required, that the nature and genius of the GOSPEL (the 
Religion which completed ail the fo reccing, and which, 
bv- die recovery of what <vas lost in Ad. mi, made an tqual 
/- ; no longer necessary) was gradually revealed 

. untu them, ibis, us we say, superseded the use, and 
* i. 23 --28. 



prevented the return, of that equal Providence ; which, 
otherwise, on their adherence to the God of Israel, and 
perseverance in his worship, they might naturally have 
expected. Nay? Hie full conviction of their recent loss, 
joined to the scattered lights in the later Prophets, 
together with, otbcr less legitimate helps, enabled them 
to gather and arrange then ideas in favour of a FUTURE 
STATE; as hath been she n at large in the foregoing 

These lights Divine Providence, in its course, did 
indulge to then;, ila the Sun of flight evtisjiess arose, lest 
the sudden splendour of his appearance should totally 
dazzle this blinded and devoted people ; who, thus in 
dulgently prepared and made fit to receive the Gospel, 
were, by their rejection of it, re nek-red totally without 

These observations, the Reader sees, add further 
evidence to the Truths advanced in the former Books, 

The course of my Argument, in those Books, led me 
.to deduce an equal administration of Providence in the 
Jewish State, from the Nature of its THEOCRACY;. My 
Subject here leads me to shew, from the general ORDER 
of God s Moral Government, that this equal Providence 
was administered in the world at large, while it retained 
the memory of the true God ; and was again administered 
in the Land of Judea, when, by the Mission of Moses, 
the true God had there regained his rights. 

All this, when carefully considered, will, amongst a 
varcity of other reasoning, be one incontestible proof 
of the truth of REVEALED RELIGION. Here, in the 
MOSAIC, we find it so contrived, by divine Skill, that the 
peculiar Nature of that Economy, under a THEOCRACY, 
should coincide with, and concur to support, that very 
.dispensation of Providence which naturally arose from 
the punishment of the PALL. This also will add strength 
and light to all my former reasoning, for the extension 
of this extraordinary Providence to PARTICULARS. For 
now it is seen, that this dispensation was not merely 
political and attendant on a Theocracy, where civil con 
siderations often overlook the care of individuals ; but it 
was a general dispensation of Religion, from the FALL to 



the time when idolatry overran the World : and was again 
administered when and where the knowledge and worship 
ef the true God was restored. 

" It is true (may an objector reply), that this different 
administration of Providence, between the faithful fol 
lowers of the true God, and the careless apostates from 
i>is worship, did preserve the dignity due to God s Moral 
Government; yet still this difference appears to he so 
great, that it looks like an impeachment of the divine 
Attributes, to confine this benefit to such only, who liked 
to retain God in their knowledge, while the rest of Man 
kind were left and abandoned to the evils consequent 
on an irregular and unequal administration of Provi 
dence. * 

This objection would have weight, if those who were 
included under the Sentence passed on Adam should be 
irremissibly doomed to the short existence of this mortal 
life. But a secret REPRIEVE (kept hid, indeed, from the 
early world) passed along with the Sentence of Condem- 
nation.. So that they who never received their due in 
this- World, would still be kept in existence till they had 
received it in the next : such being, in no other sense, 
sufferers by the administration of an unequal Providence, 
than in being ignorant of the reparation which attended 
them. For we learn, from sacred Writ (what the prin 
ciples of natural Reason do not impeach) that the DEATH 
of Christ had a retrospect from the FALL of Adam ; 
and that REDEMPTION was, from the first, amongst 
the principal Ingredients in God s Moral Government 
of Man. 

Now, if the goodness of God thus provided for human 
redemptiot?, that goodness, joined to his justice., would 
make the redemption -\s (xt-nsive a> the forfeiture. But, 
in case a retrospect did not take place, it would not bs 
thus extensive. More words would only obscure a truth, 
which the sacred text liuth rendered so plain and clear. 

Ye were redeevu : (says St. Peter) icith the precious 
Mood of Christ, FOREORDAINED from the foundation 
ef the World, but W&& ..MXIFEST in these last times for 
itau*\ St. John explains, from the words of Jesus him*- 
etfj what is to be understood by his being foreordained^ 
* i Peteri. 20, 



viz. That it was receiving the glory which accompanies 
the entrance on an high office And nozv, O Father^ 
G LORI FT me, with the GLORY which I had zvith thee 
before the World was. I have MANIFESTED^/ name 
unto the men which thou gavest me cut of the World*\ 

St. Peter, in the words above, disthigiusheth -between 
the advent of our Redeemer, and the efficacy of his death, 
in teaching as, tliat, though his MANIFESTATION was 
kite, yet the virtue of his FOREORDAIXED Redemption 
operated from the most early times. For it would be 
trifling to speak of & pre-ordination, which was not to -be 
understood of a prc-operation ; since those to whom the 
Apostle wrote well understood, from the Attributes of 
the Godhead, that all things that were, had been pre 
ordained^ in the simple sense of the word. The other 
sense, of a pre-operation, St. John more forcibly ex 
presses, by the Lamb SLAIN from the foundation of the 

But if the course of God s various Dispensations 
required, that this Act of grace, the REDEMPTION, 
should be kt pt hid for Agex, and- never fully revealed 
till the Advent of his SON, it could not be otherwise, thaa 
that, in the intermediate Dispensations, Mankind must 
be slill represented as suffering under the forfeiture of 
Adam ; in Scripture language called, lying under the 
curse : Nor had such of Adam s Posterity any cause 
to complain that the REDEMPTION was kept hid fnoiri 
them, since it was an Act of Grace, and not of Debt* 
f which they would finally, and in due time, have the 
benefit In the interim, as hath been shewn above, the 
moral government of God, revealed to us in Scripture, 
was administered to them in such a manner, a&, soonei 
*r later, to proclaim its perfect equity. 

C H A P. II. 

IN this manner did the FREE GIFT OF IMMORTALITY, 
become forfeit, by Alan s violating the CONDITION on 
which it was bestowed, For a GUT is not the less c /}^ 
by having a condition annexed unto it : the quality of a 

* John xvii. 5, 6. 

\ Bev. siii. 3. See also note [E] at the end of this Book. 



free gift not arising from its being without condition, but 
from its being without a claim of right. 

It is true, that a Condition, annexed to a claim of right, 
is of a different nature from that which the Governor of 
the world hath, seen lit to annex to a free gift : the first 
ariseth out of the settled constitution of things ; the 
second depends on arbitrary will and pleasure. Thus 
MORAL VIRTUE was the condition of that favour and 
protection which the Creature, Mc-n, claims from his 
MAND was the condition ofthe t /ra? gift of immortality. 

Again, the Law of Nature informs us, that the Con~ 
dit wn, which accompanies a claim, is, when unperformed,, 
still capable of recovering its efficacy : the same Law 
likewise directs us to the means, namely REPENTANCE. 
Bat the violated Condition, annexed to & free gift, is not 
thus recoverable. 

The reason of this difference is apparent. -God s. 
Creatures have a claim to his fa 1 our and protection, 
whenever, and as often as, the breach of the Condition 
is repaired bv sincere repentance ; because the relation 
between the Creator and Creature makes the claim indis- 
solvable. But IMMORTALITY being a// ee gift, which 
gift fasti relation doth not naturally infer ; when the con 
dition, oii which it was bestowed, is broken, the benefit 
is irrecoverably taken back. The consequence of which 
is, that if God, in his infinite goodness, shall be pleased 
to restore again tite&free gift, he may do it by what 
fneans he sees fit, as not being confined to that which his 
own establishment hath prescribed, for the recovery of 
Jsfta f&votir and protection simply. 

The means, therefore, of regaining the free gift of 
immortality, when God had graciously decreed tl:at 
it should be regained, can be only known by HEVELA- 


Another specific difference between the Conditions 
annexed to a grace, and to a claim, is this, that as the 
condition of the former is the observance of an arbitrary 
Command, this Command may not be the same (though 
still arbitrary, as annexed to afree gift) when that grace 
is restored, with what it was in thejirst donation. It was 
not the same; as we shall see when we come to speak* of 



the concretion of life and immortality again brought tg 
tivht. Where we shall, at the same time, be enabled to 
see God s gracious purpose in the Change. 

But here let us always keep in mind (which not to do 
will occasion much confusion in handling the subject 
of REDEMPTION), that the MEANS of recovering a benefit 
lost, and the CONDITION annexed to that benefit, when 
recovered, are two very distinct and different things. 
Both of which, viz. of the MEANS and the CONDITION, 
we shall speak to in their Order. 

And first of the MKANS ; and to Whom intrusted. 

The MEANS employed in this great Work, the RE* 
DEMPTION OF MANKIND, human reason alone was nol 
sufficient to discover. 

It may, indeed, be collected from the Principles of 
Natural Religion (as we have more than once observed, 
and cannot do it too often) that God, on the sincere 
repentance of Offenders, will receive them again into 
favour, and render them capable of those rewards na 
turally attendant on right behaviour. But the case 
before us is very different. The benefit lost by Adam s 
transgression was a free gift, a matter of grace. Our 
restoration, therefore, to that benefit must needs be of 
grace likewise ; consequently, the means resided in the 
hidden counsels of the L estower, and so not to be tbund 
in the promulgcd Digest of Natural Z#:r. 

lie might have restored us, and certainly would, had 
be seen it best, on the common terms on which Natural 
Religion assureth us he will receive returning Sinners to 
his favour : or he might, with equal justice, in perfecting 
the great work of R&teniptioH* require AUHIE ; namely, a 
MEDIATION, enforced by some kind of SATISFACTION. 
But what his good pleasure was herein, it was impos.^blfe 
tor human Reason to discover; whatever fitness that 
Reason may perceive iu these MEANS, when revealed. 

Indeed, had it been decent for falling Man, aided only 
by the glimmering lightof that indefinite promise, that lie 
should some Jime or other be restored to his lost in- 
heritance"; had it been decent, I say, to indulge his con 
jectures concerning the Counsels or the Most -High, ife 
would have baen. apt to think that a MEDIATOR might 
be employed amongst ihe m&anx used in this Rest C 


since he is able to see the same fitness of such an inter 
position in matters of grace, as of repentance done in 
matters of right. MEDIATION implying a confession, 
that the thing requested is merely of grace; to the 
obtaining of which, Man doth no iurlher co-operate than 
by his hopes and wishes. 

How reasonable such a conclusion YV(,U!:J have been 
we find by this, that the v< r\ AJI A\S, here supposed, 
have been, as we have sai- , in Jacf, used, and accepted 
by the God of our Salvation. lor there i;, cm God, 
(says -St, Paul) and one MEDIATOR bauitn God and 
Jinn, the Man Jesus Christ *. Jtsus (says tlie Author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews) is the MEDIATOR of 
a better Covenant, which was established upon better 
promises f~. 

The modesty of R eason finds its account in Conclusions 
thus confirmed ; and the Truth of Scripture receives 
light and strength from Conclusions thus made. 

We are now to consider of the Person of this Mediatory. 
and then enquire into the manner in which he discharged 
his J\lcdiat;cn. 

The eternal Son of God, Jesus, the Messiah, was the 
Person appointed to this Office J. The time of his 
appearance was foretold by the Jewish Prophets : and 
the nearer they lived to that time, the clearer and fuller 
were their intimations concerning the Character and 
Fortunes of him, who was sent to REDEEM Israel, 
and to bring again to light that life and immortality 
which was lost by the transgression of Adam. 

The manner in which he was to discharge his MEDIA 
TION, is our next enquiry : Whether he did it simply 
by INTERCEDING for the remission of the Forfeiture; or 
whether by SATISFYING, at the same time, for the Debt? 
is the Question. Now, as it rested in God s good 
pleasure, which of these he would accept, we must again 
have recourse to Scripture for information : where we 
find, that the intercession was by way of SATISFACTION" 
for the Debt. 

This Satisfaction is called in Scripture, REDEMPTION; 
a term taken from civil transactions amongst Men, where 
* i Tim. ii. 5. t Heb. viii. 6. 

I See note [! ] at the end of this Book. 



the things or persons redeemed were paid for, with a price. 
Hence St. Paul, speaking of our Redemption from the 
forfeiture of Adam, expresseth it by this Periphrasis, Ye 
are bought with a price *. 

The price paid was the DEATH of the Son of God. 
Christ died for the ungodly f, says he. And again, 
Christ died for our Sins^he died for <2// to obtain 
salvation, our Lord Jesus Christ died for us ||. On this 
account, and in allusion to the like transactions amongst 
Men,- the Redeemer is called the LORD -of those whom 
he redeemed For to this end (says he) Christ both died 
and rose and revived, that he might be the LORD both of 
the dead and living * *. 

- And now let us proceed to the nature of that DEATH 
which had the efficacy of REDEMPTION. 

1. First, it must be VOLUNTARY Hereby we perceive 
the love of God, because he laid down his life for #yf"|~, 
says St. John. / lay down my life for the Sheep, (saith 
Jesus himself) no man taketh it from me, but I Lay it 
down of myself. I have power to lay it down ; and I have 
power to take it again. Th is COMMANDMENT have I 
received of my Father J . Here he represents the laying 
down his life as a power bestowed, in consequence of a 
Command received. And this will lead us to consider 

2. The second requisite of a voluntary death effica 
cious of redemption ; which is, that it must be OFFERED 
UP, in consequence of pre-ordained acceptance, called, in 
the text, a COMMAND. And what is a religious offering 
iip to God, but a SACRIFICE? 

In this sense (the proper sense of the word,) the holy 
Scriptures expressly call the death of Christ a SACRIFICE, 
St. Paul speaking (as is his wont) in the Language of the 
Law, says, Christ our Passover is SACRIFICED^/* 


* 1 Cor. vi. 20. f Rom. v. 6. J i Cor. xv. 3. 

2 Cor. v. 14. |j i Thess. v. 9, 10. * * Rom. xiv. 9. 

ft i John iii. 16. JJ John x. 15 18. 

To this an objector may reply, If St. Paul speaks in the 
Language of the Law, why is not the word Sacrifice part of that 
language, as well as Passover ? And if so, says such a one, your 
argument from this text, in proof of a real Sacrifice, is enervated. To 
this I answer, the language of the law may extend to names without: 
extending to things. It plainly does so, here. The word Passover 

VOL. VI. T i t 


us*. The Writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, who- 
rarely speaks any other Language, says Christ ncedetk 
not daily, as those high Priests, to offer up SACRIFICE,. 
first for his men sins, and then for- the People s ; for th\& 
lie did oxcc when he OFFERED UP HIMSELF^. Again - 
Christ hath appeared to put away sin,, by the SACRIFICE: 
OF IIIMSELF;[;. And again He teas onte OFFERED to* 
bear the sins of many . 

But the virtue of expiatory Sacrifices consisted in* 
procuring ATONEMENT, by some sort of SATISFACTION. 
And thus the expiatory Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross: 
operated for our REDEMPTION. 

One could hardly have thought it possible, that any- 
Man, who had read the Gospels, with their best Inter 
preters, the Authors of the Epistles, should ever have- 
entertained a doubt, WHETHER; THE DEATH OF CHRIST 


But mistaken notions, concerning the origin anch 
nature of this sacred Rite, have so obscured the Ratio- 
waleoi it, that the SOCINIATCS, who boast to have inter 
preted Scripture on the severest and justest Laws of 
Logic and Criticism, have, in this instance, as well as 
in many others, deviated more from these Laws than the 
most licentious of the Ailegorhts, or the wildest of the 
tipiritualiscrs. Here, in their care to avoid an imaginary 
Absurdity, they have fallen into a real one, and of the- 
grossest kind, while they consider the death of Christ as 
nothing more than THE SEAL OF UTS MISSION. For, 
were this all, so bloody an Impression might have been- 
well spared ; &ince the proper Seal of his Mission, or the 
evidence of his being SE^T, were MIRACLES performed 
aucl PROPHECIES fulfilled: His DY/ING, if it were only 
in support of what he taught, could be nothing more than. 
the seal of his Integrity. 

But ignorance of the ORIGIN AND NATURE OF 
SACRIFICE hath misled these our Rationalists into the 
gross and semi-pagan errors concerning the Rite itsself. 


is language peculiar to the Law: the word SACRIFICE, though the 
language of the Law, is not peculiar to it, but in use throughout the 
whole religious World to denote a ltite t common,- at that time, to all 

* i Cor. v. 7. f Heb. vii. 27. J Heb. ix. 26. Helx ix. 2.8^ 


And therefore it will be expedient to give (though it 
may prove a work of some length and labour) an enlarged 
History of this whole matter. 

As SACRIFICE is almost coeval with the human Race, 
its nature and supposed effects depend on the knowledge 
of its Original , which is only to be found in the notions, 
habits, and customs of the first mortals. 

The PRINCIPLE advanced in the fourth Section of the 
fourth Book of this work, together with the reasoning on 
that Principle concerning the ANCIENT MODE OF CON 
VERSE BY ACTION IN AID OF WORDS, will lead us (so 
prolific is that Principle, in laying open the most secret 
treasures of Antiquity) to the true rationale of this widely 
extended, and as widely mistaken, Rite of Sacrifice. This 
will shew, how the common sentiments of our Nature 
would draw the first Men into this mode of worship, 
PITIATORY, or EXPIATORY. Under one or other of 
these Classes, I suppose, ail sorts of Sacrifice may be 
reasonably comprised. Though the Egyptians, we arc 
told, extended the number to six hundred sixty and six. 
But their Sacrifices, like their Kings, were wantonly 
multiplied at pleasure, in defiance of time and truth, to fit 
the purpose of every fabling or designing Priest. Tor, the 
Sentiments which nature and reason excite in every pious 
breast towards the Author and Support of our Being, are 
simply these. Gratitude for good bestowed ; Application 
to him for good sought or wanted ; and Repentance, for, 
and deprecation of, Crimes committed. 

i. Gratitude gave birth to Eucharistical Sacrifice. 
And this duty was, in the most early times, discharged 
in EXPRESSIVE ACTION; the least epuivocal of which 
was, the Offerer s bringing the first fruits of Pasturage 
or Agriculture, to that sequestered place, where the 
Deity used to be more solemnly invoked, at the stated 
times of religious Worship ; and there, presenting them 
in homage, with a demeanour which spoke to this pur 
pose " I do hereby acknowledge thee, O my God! 
" to be the Author and giver of all good : and do now, 
" with humble gratitude, return my warmest thanks 
" for these thy blessings, particularly bestowed upon 


T 2 Tilings, 


Things, thus devoted, became, from thenceforth, 
sacred. And to prevent their desecration, the readiest 
way was to send them to the Table of the Priest, or to- 
consume them in the fire of the Altar. 

2. The P no P i T i A TORY S A c R i K i c E was precatory, to 
implore success to their labours^ in order to procure and 
improve to their use these common blessings of Provi 
dence ; and deprecatory, to avert the evils due to the 
past abuse of such blessings. And in this species of 
Sacrifice, likewise, the oblation was so contrived as to 
be an Action equally expressive of an invocation for the 
continuance of God s favour; and for the remission of 
the Offerer s transgressions, 

3.. But it is the third Sort, the EXPIATORY SACRIFICE,. 
which, by reason of the horrid abuses it early underwent, 
hath obscured the whole face of things : yet the luciferouss 
Principle, here applied, to illustrate this whole matter^ 
shews EXPIATORY SACRIFICED) be, in its nature, as 
intelligible, and in practice as rational, as either of the 
other two. Here, instead of presenting the first fruits 
of agriculture and* pasturage, in conr, wine, oil and wool,, 
as in the euchtiristical, or a portion of what was to be 
sown or otherwise propagated, as in the propitiatory ; 
some ebpsen Animal, precious to the repenting Criminal; 
who- deprecates, or supposed to be obnoxious to the 
Deity, who is to be appeased, was offered up and slain 
at the Altar, in an Action, which, in all languages, when 
translated into words, speaks to this purpose, " I con- 
" less my transgressions at thy footstool^ O my God ! 
" and, with the deepest contrition, implore thy pardon ; 
" confessing that I deserve death, for these my offences." 
- The latter part of the Confession was more forcibly 
expressed by the slcticn of striking the devoted animal, 
and depriving it of life ; which, when put into words,< 
concluded in this manner " And I own that I myself 
i( deserve the death which I now inflict on this Animal." 

But here it will be proper to observe, that as crimes 
of a lighter complexion were atoned for, as well as depre-r 
cated in the propitiatory Sacrifice; so those of a deeper 
die could he only blotted out by the expiatory. This 
frequently brought into both the slaughter, or at least, 
the consecration of a devoted animal, by an action which 



spoke alike in each; but louder in the expiatory, while, 
in all the three, the action of Sacrifice still expressed a 
reasonable language. 

But this system of Sacrifice, so well supported by what 
we know of plain and simple Nature, In its most early 
movements, is further realized by what Historians tell us 
was pronounced by the mouth of the Sacrificer himself; 
who frequently explained his own action by the words 
with which he accompanied it. 

We learn from Antiquity, that when friendly or ad 
verse States had entered into an alliance for mutual de 
fence, or ended a war on mutual conditions, the League 
was solemnized by the two parties with the additional 
Sanction of a SACRIFICE, in its nature chiefly partaking 
of that species we call Propitiatory ; to implore a blessing 
on the transaction. 

The Historian, Livy, hath recorded the Ceremonies in 
use, in these Sorts of Sacrifice; where, speaking of a 
Treaty concluded between the Roman and Alban People, 
on certain conditions mutually agreed upon, he tells us, 
that the Public person, on the part of Rome, whom we 
may call the Khtg at anns, and who was the sacrificing 
Priest, when about to strike the Victim, thus invocates 
their common God, in an address to the Alban People, 
and their chief Heralds " Lcgibus deinde recitatis, Audi, 
" inquit, Jupiter-, audi Pater pat rate Populi Albani ; 
" audi tu Populus Albanus; ut ilia palam prima pos- 
" treina ex illis Tabulis C erave recitata sunt, sine dolo 
" raalo, utique ea hie hoclie rectissimeinteilectasunt, illis 
" Legibus Populus Romanus prior non deficiet. Si prior 
" defexit publico Consilio dolo malo, TU ILLO 33 IE, 


" GIS FERITO (f H anto imgis po tes pollesque: Idubidivit, 
4i pore nm saxo si$c& percusslt**" 

Another Treaty concluded between Hannibal and his 
Army of multifarious Adventurers was, the same histo 
rian tells us, sanctified in the like manner. Just before 
the battle of Trebia, the General, encouraging his Fol 
lowers, by all the usual excitements, to do their duty, con 
cludes with a promise of the most magnificent spoils, as 
* Liv. 1. i. c. 24. 

T 3 the 


the reward of their valour. And then offering one of 
t iose propitiatory Sacrifices for himself and his army ; 
the better to induce the various nations, of which it was 
composed, to confide in his word, and rest assured of his 
good faith, he held out a Lamb ready for the Altar, and 
then proceeded in the following manner" Eaque ut 
" rata scirent fore, Agnum laeva manu, dextra silicem 


" IFSF AGNUM MACTA.SSET. Sectuulum prccationem, 
" Cap ut pecudis saxo disit*^ 

We see the reason, why in these religious Acts, when 
made the Sanction of good faith, in public and civil con 
ventions, the expressive action should be further ascer 
tained by fiords; It was necessary, in an affair of public 
and general importance, t0 give the utmost precision to 
the Act, by removing from it all doubtful or equivocal 

Again, it is farther worth our notice, that, although 
T<IE SPEAKING BY ACTION had (as we have shewn) 
its original in the defects and imperfections of early lai> 
guage ; yet, even v\hcn those impediments to fuller infor 
mation \\ere in a ocd measure removed, still, partly from 
habit and c us to in, but principally from some advantages 
which this mode of converse had above the other, of 
speech, it wa (as has been observed elsewhere) long kept 
up amongst People of simpler manners, especially in the 
more solemn transactions of lilb; of which those relating 
to religion were the chief: by reason, that sigMJicativt 
actions make a stronger and more durable impression than 
words ; as the l ; ,ye is a more certain and steady convey 
ance of intelligence than the Ear. 

On the wbols, the Header now sees, that nothing could 
be more natural, intelligible, or rational, than this mode 
of religious Worship^ as here explained. 

Ignorance of all this, and inattention to the state and 
condition of ancient times, have divided Believers into 
two parties on this subject. 

One of them holds, that the origin of Sacrifices was by 
command from heaven ; the other, that it sprung from 
Super$titip&, together with many the like absurd practices. 

* Liv. lib. xxi. c. 45, 



The first call this religious Rite, Mysterious: and so give 
to Heaven what, in their opinion, Reason disclaims. As 
io the origin of Sacrifices, (says a learned Divine) it is 
extremely hard to conceive them to be a human Institu 
tion; BECAUSE we cannot give any tolerable a&cow^-of 
Jhe REASONS of .them*. A move than tolerable, even a 
plain and clear reasan, the Reader sees is now given. 
J3ut men are always disposed to find in themselves a 
standard for the measure of all things. However, admit 
Sacrifice to be devoid of lleason ; must things, thus cir- 
-cu instanced, needs come from Heaven ? As if nothing 
.had ever entered into Religion that was of the growth of 
Superstition! What will be the consequence of thus ac 
counting for what we do not understand, but the dis 
posing men to think, that every religious Rite, though 
palpably absurd, yet, if .fancifully mysterious^ had that 

Another -argument, which this more orthodox Party 
urge for t their Opinion, that Sacrifice -must needs be 
heavenly-derived, is, perhaps, something more plausible, 
-but equally inconclusive : -It is the very early use of 
Sacrifice, .which rises as high as the two Sous of Adam. 
.And, indeed,,our account -of. this significative action shews, 
that we can conceive no time, after the !/<#//, too early for 
its introduction amongst men, under the guidance and 
government of .natural Religion, as -these .two Brothers 
certainly were: Besides, the defects of language, while 
in its early rudiments, necessarily occasioned this mode 
of intercourse between Man and his Maker. Yet, not 
withstanding, Primaeval use can .never .prove Sticrijtcc 
.to have arisen from any other source than the light of 
natural reason. And if .that be sufficient (as we have 
.-shewn it is), we must needs conclude -that it arose from 
-thence, when Scripture is silent concerning any other 
<source. Especially since we .find that this Scripture hath 
.carefully recorded what God immediately, and not nature., 
taught to Adam and his Family. Now, concerning 
Sacrifice, there is not a single word which implies any 
.such instruction. On the contrary, the manner in which 
the story is told leads us to conclude, that the Rite was 
{first. dictated by natural reason. Abel was a keeper of 

* Shuckford. 

T 4 


sheep, but Cain was a Tiller of the ground. And in 
process of time it came to pass, that Cam brought of the 
fruit of the ground, an offering unto the Lord. And 
Abel he brought of the firstling of his flock*. And IN 
PROCESS OF TIME (says the Historian) IT CAME TO 
PASS. &c. words, which (in the sequel) not only acquaint, 
us with the first Sacrifices, but in these, here quoted, , 
strongly intimate, that the Rite was of human original. 
While, throughout the whole narrative, we find no men 
tion of any prescribed mode of Patriarchal Sacrifice, 
though Moses is most minute in what concerns the pre 
scribed Sacrifices of the LAW. Doth not this shew, that 
the first was a voluntary, uncommanded Worship, where 
the mode was left to the discretion of the Worshipper; 
and the latter a prescribed Rite, where every circumstance, 
in the celebration, was to be scrupulously observed ? 

Nor is this reasoning to be evaded by the confessed 
brevity of the sacred Historian. For had the Original 
of Sacrifice been prescribed, and directly commanded by 
the Deity, Moses could never have omitted the express 
mention of that circumstance. . The two capital Obser 
vances in the Jewish Ritual were the SABBATH and 
SACRIFICES. To impress the highest reverence and 
veneration on the Sabbath, the Historian is careful to re 
cord its divine original in these words Thus the Heavens 
and the Earth were finished, and all the Host of them. 
And on the seventh day, God ended his Work, which he 
had made: and he IIESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
from all his work which he had made : and GOD BLESSED 


that in it, he had rested from all his Work, which God 
created and made f. Now, who can suppose, that, had 
SACRIFICE been of divine Original, Moses would have 
mgiccted to establish this truth, at the time that he re- 
corded the other? Since it was of equal use, and of equal 
importance, with the other. I should have said of much 
greater: for the multifarious Sacrifices of the LAW had 
not only a reference to the forfeiture of Adam, but like 
wise prefigured our Redemption by Jesus Christ, as we 
shall shew r hereafter. 

The other mistaken extreme, arising from the same 
* Gen. iv. 2. -j- Gen. ii. 2, 3. 



cause, namely, ignorance of the nature of Sacrifice, is 
amongst those Believers, who hold, that although Sacri 
fice hecarne, at length, of divine- right, yet, in its Origin, 
it was but- a capricious Ordinance of human invention; 
concerning which, no rational or philosophic account can 
be given ; yet, having spread wide, and struck its roots 
deep into the fat and lumpish Soil of Superstition, it was 
suffered, by God, to occupy a place in the Mosaic Insti 
tution, in compliance with the prejudices of a perverse and 
barbarous People, to whom many other extraneous Rites 
(perhaps irrational, but certainly harmless) were indulged. 

And now, to go on with our History of Sacrifice. This 
important Rite, first dictated by natural reason, did not 
long continue in its original integrity. 

Of all the customs in use amongst Men, those re<- 
specting Religion are most liable to abuse. For the pas 
sions of HOPE and FEAR become then most inordinate 
when the Mind is taken up and occupied in the offices of 
divine Worship. At this season, the sobriety of common 
sense is often forced to give way to the extravagance of 
the imagination. And this more especially must have 
been the case in those early Ages, when undisciplined 
REASON was but just projecting how to curb the irregular 
sallies of Enthusiasm. 

Add to this, that SACRIFICE being a Scenical Rite, 
it was principally fitted to strike the Fancy; which de 
lighting in paradox and Mystery, would riot in this en 
chanted ground, till it had lost sight of the simple mean 
ing of a plain expressive action, first conceived for use, 
and continued out of necessity. 

Under this state of delusion, Eucharist ical and pro* 
pitiatory Sacrifices were soon imagined to receive their 
chief value from the costliness of the offering ; and 
HECATOMBS were supposed more acceptable to Heaven, 
than purity of mind, adorned with gratitude, and humble 
reliance on the Deity. 

Amidst these disorders, Philosophers and Moralists 
might, from time to time, cry out, aud ask, as they did, 
but without being heard, 

" Dicite, Pontifices, in Sacro quid facit Aurum? 

" Quin damus id Superis, de magna quod dare lance 

" Non 


" Non possit magni Messalas lippa propago : 

" Compositum jus, fasque animi sanctosque recessus 

< Mentis, et incoctum generoso pectus honesto ? 

" Haec cedo, ut admoveamTemplis, etfarre litabo*." 
The world went on its Train; and pomp of Sacrifice was 
<every where preferred to the piety of the Offerer. 

But in expiatory Sacrifices, matters went still worse. 
-For, in these, the passion of FEAR being predominant, 
strange enormities were soon superadded to the follies of 
the Worshippers. 

In these, the offering of the slain animal began, first 
.-of all, to be vainly considered as a VICARIOUS ATONE- 
.3IENT for the crimes of the Sacrificer. 

Though, in the purity of the .first institution of Sacri 
fice, striking the devoted animal was an action naturally 
significative ; which (as we said,) when reduced to words, 
contained no more than this humble and contrite recogni 
tion / confess, O my God! tjiat I.deswve death for my 


Modern Unbelievers, to get to their favourite point, 
which was to arraign the Mosaic Ritual .for its vicarious 
atonements, have been very large in exposing this abuse 
in the offices of pagan or of natural Religion, corrupted. 
** Right reason (say they) disclaims all such atonements^ 
,snd teaches, that to secure pardon for our offences against 
-God, no more is required than humble confession before 
the throne of Grace, joined to a sincere purpose of amend 
ment; so that all the Mosaic, as well as Pagan Sacrifices, 
which went on the idea of a vicarious atonement, .were 
merely human inventions of fraud or superstition. 1 

But this charge against the LAW is founded either in 
-ignorance or in ill faith. For though it may be true, that ? 
,by the Law of Nature, all vicarious atonement by Sacri 
fice is superfluous and absurd ; yet, by the Law of 
Moses, it was rendered just and rational.; for though this 
Law was founded, as all God s revelations are, on natural 
Religion, yet the Law, built thereupon, is conceived on 
the Principle of a FREE GIFT, long since forfeited by the 
breach of the Condition on which it was bestowed. This 
Principle, together with the loss, intimates the recover!/. 

* Pers. Satyr. II. 



And further, in the institution of the Rites of Sacrifice, 
instructs us in the means employed for the recovery; 
means peculiar, and properly adapted, to the nature of a 
free gift. 

We have already given, and shall further explain and 
justify, those means (namely, the VICARIOUS ATONE 
MENT, in the SACRIFICE ON THE CROSS, with its de 
pendencies), on the grounds of Natural Reason and 

To free, therefore, the vicarious atonements, in the 
Mosaic Sacrifices, from this Objection of our PHILOSO 
PHERS, it will be sufficient to observe these two things : 

1. First, that the Mosaic Sacrifices were TYPES (and 
by both the Dispensations of the Law and Gospel de 
clared to be so) of the great vicarious Sacrifice of the 
Cross : So that the justification of their use depends on 
their Prototype; whose conformity to right reason and 
equity will be shewn. 

2. But then, in the second place, as these Types had 
a MORAL IMPORT*, that is, bore a temporal sense like 
wise, having a relation to the peculiar benefits enjoyed 
under a THEOCRACY, and so, of consequence, were not 
Types merely and solely of things to come, and to be 
transacted in another System, it will be necessary, in 
order to their full justification against the objections of our 
adversaries, to shew, that the peculiar benefits given by 
the LAW were of the nature of a FREE GIFT, like that 
of immortalliii, which was first bestowed on, and soon 
after lost by Adam in Paradise., and recovered by Jesus 
Christ in the Gospel. Between which two Dispensations 
the LAW came in (as an intermediate Revelation), and 
the benefits peculiar to the LAW (namely, extraordinary 
temporal blessings) were so far of the nature of the FREE 
GIFT of immortality (their prototype), as to make the 
MEANS of reconciliation for the violated condition atten 
dant on such a Gift, different from what is required for 
the transgressions which natural Religion condemns. 

Thus have we put a fair end to this formidable ob 
jection, conceived in ignorance, and brought forth in 

* See these terms explained in tli8 6th Book, p. 33, et seq. of this 




But this is not all. The sacred Volume, which con 
tains the Principles whereon vicarious atonements are 
justified, under the Mosaic Law, at the same time in 
structs us, that, by the LAW OF NATURE, a -vicarious 
atonement by sacrifice is superstitious and absurd. 

Moses, in pity of his People (whose idolatry, during 
his short absence, had so incensed the God of Israel, as 
to make it apprehended, by their Leader, that they would 
be totally abandoned, if not instantly destroyed), trans 
ported with the patriot passion, and misled by the Prin 
ciples he had brought from Egypt, concerning VICARIOUS 
DENOTEMENTS, thus addresses the Lord: Yet now, if 
thou wilt, forgive their sins: and if not, blot me, I pray 
thee, out of thy Book which thou hast written. To this 
the God of Israel replies (but on the principles of his 
own prior Law, the LAW OF NATURE; the Ritual 
Law being already planned, indeed, but not given and re 
HIM will I blot out of my book*." As much as to say, 
<c The Law of Nature allows not of vicarious atone- 
" ments\ but ordains, that the man who transgresseth 
* c shall himself bear the punishment of his iniquity ; a 
* punishment which no man deserves for the Faults of 
" another, unless he be partaker of the guilt, by joining 
" in the transgression." 

But self-love, aided by superstition, made men seek for 
pardon of their own Sins in the sufferings of others. 
When God gave the Law of Nature, he did not permit 
his Creatures to change the means he had ordained for 
pardon and reconciliation. But when he ordained the 
JWcsaic Law, by which many benefits of mere grace, as 
well as others of Debt, were bestowed, he might, for 
breaches in the condition annexed to those of mere grace, 
well and equitably make the terms of pardon different 
from those he had before established for breaches in the 
condition annexed to those of Debt. 

Thus we see how REVELATION triumphs ; while every 
attack upon it produceth, in some new discovery of the 
amazing Wisdom in the various parts of the Dispensa 
tion, some further evidence of its Truth and Divinity. 
We have shewn with what superior sagacity, as well as 
* Exod. xxx. 32, 33. 



indulgence, many harmless practices of Gentilism were 
introduced into the Mosaic Ritual. But to manifest to* 
the World what use divine Wisdom can make even of 
the worst rubbish of Paganism, VICARIOUS SACRIFICES 
condemned by the Law of Nature, as absurd and super 
stitious, it changed, when brought into the Mosaic Ritual, 
their very nature ; and, in that revealed System, made 
them provisionary and reasonable. 

And now, again, to proceed, A deep-rooted Super* 
stition is always spreading wide and more wide. When 
men, thus labouring under this evil, had (in order to give 
themselves ease) gone so far as to indulge the fancy of a 
vicarious Sacrifice, it was natural for them, to think of 
enhancing so cheap an atonement by the cost and rarity 
of the offering. And oppressed with their malady, they 
never rested till they had got to that which they conceived 
to be the most precious of all, A HUMAN SACRIFICE. 
Nay, to accumulate the merit of the service by bringing 
it still nearer home, the madness did not cease to rage till 
it terminated in INFANTICIDE, or in offering up to their 
grim idols (instead of themselves) the CHILDREN of 
their bowels. We learn from Sanchoniathon, in that in 
estimable fragment of Antiquity, translated by Philobib- 
lius, that what is here collected from the natural course 
of things, is realized by fact. It was customary In 
ancient times (says the fragment) in great and public 
calamities, before things became incurable, for Princes 
and Magistrates to offer up in sacrifice to the avcng&g 
Demons, the dearest of their Offsping*. Under the 
fanatic fury of the high efficacy of this atonement, we 
need not wonder that the strongest instincts of Nature 
should be subdued, and even their very impressions effaced 
in this horrid sacrifice, when we reflect that mere civil 
custom, to avoid only a probable, nay, but a possible, in 
convenience, was, in those early times, of force enough to 
erase, even out of the best cultivated minds, the innate 
love of Parents for their Children, and to introduce a 
general practice of exposing them, at their birth, to almost 

* Apud Euseb. Pra?p. Evang. l.iv. p. 158, "60? r lV TO?* rAaoK, I* 

Toy rr/a,i;n~ 
)i> ETnd^avat 



inevitable destruction. What power then must this magic 
of custom acquire, when joined to dire Supers tition, 
under the horror of approaching vengeance, to dispose 
the terrified Supplicant to offer up his own kind to avert 
it ; nay, to make all sure, his own offspring, not only with 
indifference, but with alacrity. 

This seems to have been the true original of HUMAN" 
SACRIFICE*: An infernal practice, which soon over 
spread the World, barbarous and civil. For that LOVE 
and FEAR of God, implanted in our Nature to impiove 
and perfect HUMANITY, do, when become degenerate 
by fanatic and servile passions, make as speedy a progress 
in dishonouring and debasing it. 

From this HISTORY of the origin, use, and abuse of 
SACRIFICE, thus delivered, on the principles of Nature 
and Reason, and verified by Fact, I have deduced, and, 
with the fullest evidence, established the following truths, 

1. First, That the mode of Religious Worship by 

2. Secondly, That Sacrifice for sin was a fit atonement, 
and reasonably required in the Dispensations both of 
natural and revealed Religion, as a proper means of 
reconciling sinful man to his offended Master. 

3. Thirdly, That this species of it, which is most open 
to objection, the VICARIOUS SACRIFICE, is founded in 
Reason, when directed to the Mosaic and Christian 
Systems ; how abusive and absurd soever, when practised 
in the offices of Paganum. 

Nothing but this history of Sacrifice could lay open 
the way to these Truths: And nothing but these Truths 
could Ictus into the true System of GOSPEL REDEMP 
TION. For till it was shewn that a VICARIOUS ATONE 
MENT, a thing of the essence of this System, is consonant 
to our most rational ideas of the divine attributes; it 
might be thought, by those who only saw the abuse, and 
were ignorant of the genuine use of vicarious atonement \ 
that our proving the death of Christ to be a REAL 
SACRIFICE, was only adding one embarrass more in 
the road of Revelation, instead of removing (as was 
my intention) a great many that ignorance hath laid 
acioss it. 

* See note [G] at the end of this Book. 



But having now obviated the SOCINI AX objection to 
this species of Sacrifice, we may proceed without further 
impediment to establish this capital Principle of the 


. i. Which will be done, first of all, by shewing that the 
precious death upon the Cross was, for many ages, pre- 
Jigiwed, and, in a scenical manner, foretold by the 
SACRIFICES OF THE LAW; and more particularly and 
circumstantially by those Sacrifices called PIACULAR and- 

2. And secondly, by shewing that this DEATH was 
kept in perpetual memory under the Christian Dispensa 
tion, by a SACRED RITE, instituted by the Divine Victim? 
himself on his going to be offered ; this Rite being (to 
peak properly) nothing but, nor other than, A FEAsr 

I. All Christian Churches, even the Soclman, agree 
in this, that the Sacrifices of the Jewish Law served^ 
amongst other uses, for TYPES of the death of Christ, 
particularly those Sacrifices called vicarious^ piacular, 
and expiatory Of which, some prefigured one part of 
that tremendous transaction, and some another. The 
victim burnt without the Camp foretold his sufferings 
without the City The blood sprinkled in the Sanctum 
Sanctorum by the High Priest, on the day of expiation, 
prefigured our entrance into heaven, whither Christ pre 
pared the way for us by his blood The sacrifice of the 
Paschal Lamb, which was both piacular and eucharistical^ 
proclaimed the innocence of our Redeemer, and the uni 
versal benefit of his blood to Mankind. 

To set this matter in the clearest light As to the 
simple rite of SACRIFICE, this was not peculiar to Judaism* 
It was in use, as we have shewn, from the beginning. 
Nature dictated this Symbol to all her Children : It being 
nothing else than a species of Worship, in action instead 
of words ; so that sacrifice and religious worship were 
correlative and coeval ideas. The particular thing which 
Moses indulged to his people, for the hardness of their 
hearts, was that multifarious Ritual, of which, indeed,. 
Sacrifice makes a capital part. 



Amongst the various causes of the Mosaic Ritual, the 
principal were these : 

1. First, A necessity of complying with those inve 
terate prejudices (least liable to idolatrous abuse) which 
a long abode in Egypt had induced : amongst the chief 
was their attachment to SACRIFICE ; a species of divine 
worship, which, at this time, made almost the whole of 
Religion in the Egyptian world. These people (as hath 
been observed before) reckoning up six hundred and 
sixty-six sorts of sacrifice. 

2. A second cause of the Mosaic Ritual was to debar 
the people from their too ready entrance to Idolatry, by 
keeping them continually occupied in the periormance of 
their sacred Rites to the GOD OF ISRAEL; whose NAME, 
\\hen lost in all other places, was, by their SEPARATION, 
to be preserved in the land of Judea, till the j illness of 
time should come. 

3. A third was to PREFIGURE, by these Rites of Sa 
the Mosaic Religion being the foundation of, and pre 
paratory to, the Christian, it was fit and proper to con^ ; 
nect these two parts of God s moral Dispensation, in. 
.such a manner that their mutual relation might, in a- 
proper time, become evident to all men. For in two. 
Religions related to each other, as the MEANS and the. 
nothing can be more conformable to our ideas of Divine 
Wisdom, than its contriving some ties which might esta 
blish the knowledge, and perpetuate the memory of that 
close relation, without iminatnrely explaining the parti-- 
ciilars of it. Now what can be conceived more effectual, 
for this purpose than to make the RITES of the one Re 
ligion TYPICAL, that is, declarative and expressive of 
the general nature of the other. 

These various uses of SACRIFICE in the Mosaic Ritual 
cannot but raise our admiration of the divine Wisdom, 
which hath so contrived, that the very Worship indulged, 
to the Israelites, in compassion to their childish pre 
judices, should not only prevent the abuses, the natural 
effect of those prejudices which led to idolatry, but, at 
the same time, should establish and proclaim, by means 
of their TYPICAL representations, a strong and lasting 
1 1 connexion 


connexion between the two Religions. Representations 
go apposite to this end and purpose, that all the sects arid 
parties in Christianity, how widely seever they differ 
amongst themselves in other matters, agree in this, that 
the sacrifices of the Law, besides the other uses in the 
Mosaic institution, are TYPICAL OF THE DEATH OF 
CHRIST*. So far, we say, all the Christian Churches, 
even the SOCINIAN, agree with us. In this, they differ; 
they pretend, that though the Jewish Sacrifices prefigured 
the death of Christ, as Typeset it, yet it does not follow 
that his death was a real Sacrificfy like the Jewish. On 
the contrary, we affirm, that this alone is sufficient to 
shew, that if the Type was a real Sacrifice, the Antitype 
must be so likewise. For (to enter a little more particu 
larly into this mode of representation) a TYPE differs 
from a SYMBOL in this, that the Type represents some 
thing future ; the Symbol, something past or present. - 
The commanded Sacrifice of Isaac was given tor a Type ; 
the Sacrifices -of the Law were Types. The Images of 
the Cherubims over the Propitiatory were Symbols ; the 
bread and wine in the last Supper were Symbols. 

So far they agree in their genus, that they are equally 
REPRESENTATIONS; butin their species, they differ widely. 

It is not required that the Symbol should partake of 
the nature of the thing represented : the Cherubims 
shadowed out the celerity of Angels, but not by any phy 
sical celerity of their own ; the bread and wine shadowed 
out the body and blood of Christ, but not by any change 
in the Elements. 

But Types being, on the contrary, representations of 
things future, and so partaking of the nature of Prophecy, 
were to convey information concerning the nature, of the 
Antitypes, or of the things represented; which they could 
not do, but b} the exhibition of their own nature. 

Hence we collect, that the command to offer Isaac, 
being the command to offer a real Sacrifice, the death 
and sufferings ot Christ, thereby represented, was a real 
Sacrifice. And the piacular and vicarious Sacrifices of 
the LAW being real Sacrifices, the Death on tiu Cross 
was a real Sacrifice likewise. 

* See what hath been said of the logical and natural propriety of 
Types and .secondary senses, Book vi. 6. 

VOL. VI. U Were 


Were this otherwise, the- Type, as a Type, would con* 
tain more than was contained in the Ant ti i/ps. An ab 
surdity, which makes the Shadow convey more than the 
Substance; when, by its very nature, it should convey 
less. On this Truth, the reasoning in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews is founded <c Christ, (says the Apostolic 
" Writer) was once offered to bear the sins of many. 
" For the Law having the SHADOW of good things to 
* come, and not the VERY IMAGE of the things, can 
sc never with those- Sacrifices, which they offered, year by 
" year, continually, make the comers thereunto perfect : 
" for then would they not have ceased to be offered *." 

The Jewish Sacrifices are here called SHADOWS, not 
in an absolute, but in a comparative sense. The Typs 
is inferior to the Antitype , just as, in visible things, a ? 
natural shadow is to an artificial image. For the Typical 
Sacrifices of the Law, having, besides their property of 
Types, a -MORAL IMPORT, (and not like the Typical Sa 
crifice commanded to be offered by Abraham, a mere 
shadow without any moral import) are called Shadows v 
not in opposition to realities (for having a moral import,. 
they are realities) ; but called Shadows, only in compa 
rison to the vast disparity between the virtues of the 
Types and the Antitype, thus explained and enforced by 
the same inspired Writer u For if the blood of bulls 
and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the 
" unclean, sanctiiieth to thepUrx/ymgvf tttejksh, now 
" MUCH MORE shall the blood of Christ, who offered 
" himself without spot to God, purge your conscience 
" from dead works to serve the living Godt :? 

Again ; though, from hence, it appears that these Type* 
with the Antitype are occupied in the elucidation of the 
same great subject, yet it will not follow, that every several 
Type is equally expressive of the Antitype. Some of 
them shall present a more perfect image of the Antitype 
than others ; yet they do not exclude the most imperfect 
from a share in the honour of so august a representation. 
For though the divine Author of the^ystem had ordained, 
that the whole of the Jewish Ritual, concerning Sacrifices, 
should typify or prefigure the great SACRIFICE or 

* Heb. ix. 28. -x. i, 2. See Book vi. 6. of the Divine Legation. 

tleb. ix, 13, 



CHRIST ; yet as those Sacrifices, at the same time, con 
stituted an essential part of the Mosaic economy, which, 
on several occasions, I have expressed more generally by 
the terms of their bearing a MX)RAL i IMPORT, it could not 
but he that some would carry fainter and others stronger, 

*> U <J * 

shadows or images of what as Types they represented ; 
just as the various Jewish service, in its moral nature, 
afforded more or less occasions of evidence. Thus, the 
Type of the Paschal Lamb was a more perfect represen 
tation, than the Type of the Victim burnt without the 

It might, and probably would have been otherwise, 
had these Types borne no moral import, like the com 
mand to offer Isaac, for then nothing could have hin 
dered all the Types from being as complete representa 
tions of the Antitype as that command to Abraham w r as; 
and if nothing hindered, it is reasonable to suppose, it 
would have been done. 

We have observed, that these Types, in the Mosaic 
Ritual, were a kind of Prophecy by action ; in which 
Providence was pleased to manifest to the world, the 
real connexion between the Jewish and the Christian 
Revelations. But this was not all. The other sort of 
Prophecy was not wanting, which, by way of eminence, 
has commonly assumed the name, viz. The written Pre 
dictions of the Jewish Prophets. Where, in a detailed 
account of the PROMISED MESSIAH, the principal part 
relates to his death and sufferings on the Cross, under the 
idea of a SACRIFICE. And if, as hath been pretended, 
these things relate to Jesus only in a secondary sense, 
and to the Jewish Leaders in a primary, this would only 
make the analogy between these two kinds of Prediction 
more complete, and the connexion between the two 
Religions more strong and durable. For the Jewish 
Sacrifices, though as -types they rcier ultimately to Christ, 
yet as a religious service not typical, they had, like Pro 
phecy, a prior reference to the LAW. So admirable is 
tliis coincidence between these two sorts of prediction. 
As to the logical and moral illness of SECONDARY SENSES, 
I have explained that matter at large in the former parts 
of this work *. 

* See Book vi. 6, 

u 2 Hitherto 


Hitherto in support of the Doctrine of the GREAT 
SACRIFICE ox TIIK CROSF. And this alone seems abun 
dantly sufficient- to establish it. 

But this is not the whole. It was not only FORKTOLD 
by the Types and other Prophecies of the aid Laic, 
but the Remembrance of it was PERPETUATED by a" 
divine Institution in the -new: and an explanation of this- 
Rite is -the last step we shall take to tix this fundamental* 
Article of our holy Faith . 

In those Ages of the World *, when Victims made a- 
principal part of the Religion both of Jews and Gentiles, 
the Sacrifice was commonly followed by a religious Feast 
on the thing offered; called a Feast upon, or after, the 
Sacrifice; the partakers of which were supposed to be 
come partakers of the SEXEEITS of tlie Sacrifice. In 
allusion to this custom, Jesus was pleased to institute a 
Feast of the same kind. In" order of time, indeed, the 
Feast naturally follozced the Sacrifice. But in this great" 
Atonement, where the VICTIM, the OFFERER, and the* 
PRIEST, were all one arid the same Person, the Feast 
was, of necessity, to precede \\\Q Sacrifice. 

The History of this institution is recorded, by the 
Evangelists, in these words-: And as they were cat- 
*" ing, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and gave it to his 
ie disciples , and said, Take, eat: THIS is :.rv BODY. And 
" he took the cup, and gave thairks, and -gave it to them, 
<c saying, Brink ye all of it ; for THIS is MY BLOOD of 
"the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the 
"- remission of sins." Matt. xxvi. 26 28. 

Now, to manifest that we are not- mistaken in the idea 
here givefi of- this Rite, let us reflect on the precise time 
ef its celebration. 

"As Jesus, with his Disciples, (says the text) wag- con- 
eluding ttie Paschal Supper, which was a Jewish Feast 
after the Sacrifice, his own- approaching Sacrifice naturally 
suggested to him the idea of this customary Feast. But 
being himself both the VicthnwA the Offerer, the Insti 
tution of this Rite must of necessity, as we observed, 
precede the Sacrifice The Sacrifice on the Cross was the 
Antitype of the Paschal Lamb , and the Feast on Christ s 

* $etlie Discourse on tin-. Nuture arid End of the Lor.d s Supper, 
. of tin? Edit, 



.Sacrifice was \hvAntitype of the Paschal feast. So that 
the properest season we can conceive for the institution 
Oi the last supper., was the instant of time between the 
/celebration of the Type, and the offering of the Antitype, 
This time likewise corresponded with Christ s usual prac- 
.:K;e, who was wont to deliver his instructions by actions 
and expressions, bearing allusion to what passed before 
.his ey$s, or presented itself, in the natural course of things, 
4x> his observation *. These considerations shew, that the 
action, in the celebration of this Rite, -was so strongly 
declarative of its nature, that had Jesus -only broken 
.the -bread and given the cup in reiiwmb ranee of -himself, 
without adding, this is mybodyandtftinw<wy>btoc<f) no 
.ingenuous Hearer could -entertuin a doubt, whether thk> 
was d esigned by him as a Feast upon the Sacrifice. Birt 
*vhen to this we add .the remaining part of the explana 
tory words, in the consecration of the Elements Tins 
js si Y BODY TIMS is MY BLOOD wiiat is here con 
tended for becomes almost self-evident. 

In these feasts xtpon Sacrifice^ the very Zw/ytbat had 
.been offered was eaten for the repast. .Now, as the tot 
-supper was to be instituted, and the Rite first celebrated, 
before the great Sacrifice was actually offered, (for the 
reason just now given) it was on that account (not to 
mention other reasons) necessary that some symbolic 
dements .should b.e substituted in 4ke place of .the mv> 
body and blood. These elements were BREAD AND WINE^: 
on. this occasion naturally, r.propcrly, and -elegantly called, 


For if :the specific nature of the last supper was a 
feast upon Sacrifice, we must needs conclude, that the 
divine Institutor of ithe feast would give alLpossible evr* 
dence of so important a Truth. 

But if (as was in fact the case) this evidence must 
-arise from, and out -of, the occasion, and through the 
words of the Institution, then the figurative terms of BODY 
and BLOOD became necessary, these only -being fully de 
clarative of the nature of the like. And as this made 

* See Sir Isaac Newton s Observations on the Prophecies,^. 148; 
where he takes notice how Jesus, from the approach of li a next froiri 
the lilies in bloom from the. Iccrccs of thcji<r-trces shot out from 
the sheep kept in folds-near the temple for sacrifice was accustomed to 
take occasion of inculcating his spiritual Doctrines and Precepts. 

^ 3 the 


the use of these terms to be necessary, so the necessity 
of them produced their ease and elegance. This is ob 
served, because it has been usual amongst Protestants, 
even while they were opposing the portentous doctrine of 
T R A N 8 u BST A N T i A T io N *, to acknowledge, cither through 
ignorance of, or inattention to, the specific nature of the 
Kite, that the figure of body ami blood was extremely 
violent and forced. 

It likewise removes another difficulty, which the ad 
vocates for a r^ai presence throw in the way ot common 
sense. They pretend that, if the words of the institution 
were only FIGURATIVE, the Evangelist and St. Paul 
might, and probably would, have changed ttiejigure , in 
their narratives, live times repeated on diliercnt occasions; 
for that no reason can be given of the unvaried use 
of the. same words, but because they are to be under 
stood LITERALLY ; and then as they were declarative 
of one of the greatest Mysteries in Religion, there was a 
necessity to record the very terms employed, whenever 
the history of the Institution was related. To this, it is 
sufficient to reply, that, indeed, were the words used 
figuratively, and the figure only expressive of a death 
commemorated, and no more, as the Socihiaiis suppose 
it to be, it would be but reasonable to think, the terms 
,\vould have been varied by one or other of the sacred 
Writers ; because it is natural to believe, that Writers of 
so different genius and acquirements in language would 
not all have the same opinion concerning the use of these 
precise terms, so as to esteem them preferable to any 
other; as, in fact, on this idea of the Rite, they would not 
be. But we can by no means allow their consequence, 
that, therefore, they are to be understood LI TE u ALLY ; 
since, if \ve admit the Institution to be of the nature of a 
feast KJ o;-i Sacrifice, there will be the same necessity for 
the unvaried use of the terms, although they b&Jigurative, 
as there would have been although they were literal. For 
these precise terms are as necessary to denote a feast ii<>(>n 
& crifice (the Rite we contend for) as to denote the Sacri 
fice itself; the enormous idea of the church of Rome. 

All this reasoning on the nature of the Institution, 
from the words of the Institutor, receives additional 

* See note [Ii] at the eijclof this Cook. 



strength even from what hath been supposed to invalidate 
it, namely, the conclusion of them Do THIS IN RE 
MEMBRANCE OF JME For although these words, when 
delivered alone, might enjoin HO more than & remembrance 
of a dead benefactor, (which is the sense the Socinians 
put upon them) yet, when preceded by- THIS is MY* 
EODY- THIS :i s MY BLOOD they are certainly an in 
junction to keep in remembrance his death and passion 
for our REDEMPTION. And could there be a least upon 
.a Sacrifice in which that Sacrifice was not to be kept m 
mind ? 

It is true, that the Disciples of- Christ being com- 
manded to do this /;/ remembrance of him, the Command 
shews that the celebration of this Feast was continually 
to be repeated, which was not the practice in the Pagan 
and Jewishjeaste after the -sacrifice. But, in tin s parti-* 
cular, the reason of the difference is apparent The 
GREAT SACRIFICE- itself (of which the Jewish were 
Types ) put an end to that mode of Religious Worship 
amongst the Followers ..of Jesus. 

Jewish and Pagaia oblations had, or were supposed to 
have, a passing and .temporary Virtue. For the law 
ixrcbig a shadow of good things to come, and not the very 
image of the things, can never icith those sacrifices, iirfiick 
they offered. year by year continually, make .the Corner* 
thereunto perfect : FOE THEN WOULD THEY NOT HAVE 


But the sacrifice on the CROSS is tbe very imnqc or 
the thing itself; and therefore has more than a passing 
and temporary effect, it continues operating till the con 
summation of all tilings ; because it makes the comers 
thereunto perfect: we being sanctified through the offer 
ing of the body and blood of Christ, ONCE^FOK ALL -\ : 
for where remission of sms is, there is NO MORE OFFER 
ING FOR SIN ;[;. It seemed expedient, therefore, that 
the operating virtue of this Sacrifice, offered once for all, 
should be continually set before our minds, in repeated 
-celebrations of the Feast upon it. 

What hath been here reasoned, on the Institution of 
the last supper, appeared so strong to a late eminent 
Person, famous for his Socinian notions on this Subject, 

* Hob. x. 1,2;* t Ver. 10. J Vcr. 18-. 

u 4 that 


that (as I have been told) he used to confess, that if the 
death of Christ could be proved to be a real Sacrifice, 
Jhe last Supper was undoubtedly of the nature of the 
feast after the Sacrifice. This was said with his usual 
address, to make his Reader overlook, and so to neglect, 
one of the capital arguments for a real sacrifice ; for it 
insinuates, that arguments for its reality are to be sought 
for elsewhere, and not in. the institution of this Mite: 
\\ hereas it is our design to shew, that this very Kite of 
the last supper constitutes one of the capital arguments 
for the reality of the Sacrifice itself. And, therefore, let 
us now go on with it. 

We have seen what may be naturally, and, indeed, 
what must be necessarily, concluded from this part of the 
Evangelic History of the Institution of the LAST SUPPER, 
concerning Christ s design therein. 

Let us see next what may be collected of St. Paul s 
sense concerning the same ; who, although occasionally, 
yet hath at large spoken of the nature of the LAST 

And here we shall find, that from this very sort of 
Feast (which the words of the Institution of it plainly 
alluded to) St. Paul expressly draws a comparison; and, 
at the same time, to explain the efficacy of the Rite, in 
forms us of the end and purpose of those Feasts upon 

It is in that place of his first Epistle to the Corinthians, 

where he reproves the proselytes to Christianity for the 

idolatrous practice of sitting with the Gentiles, in their 

feasts upon Sacrifice, and eating of the meats that had 

been offered to Idols, 

His words are these " I speak as to wise men; judge 
" ye what I say. The Cup of Blessing which we bless, 
" The bread which we break, is it not the COMMUNION 
" OF THE BODY OF CHRIST? For we being many are 
" one bread, and one body : for we are all partakers of 
" that one bread. Behold Israel after the flesh : are 
" not they which eat of the Sacrifices, Partakers of the 
" Altar ? What say I, then ? That an idol is any thing, 
" or that that which is offered to idols is any thing? But 
" I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they 

" sacrifice 


(t sacrifice to Devils, and not to God : and I would not 
" that you should have FELLOWSHIP with Devils. Ye 
<( cannot drink the Cup of the Lord, and the Cup of the. 
" Devils : ye cannot be Partakers of the Lord s Table, 
" and of the Table of Devils *." 

The Apostle here professeth to write to these Corin 
thians, under their own assumed Character of wise men* 
And, though, perhaps, he useth the term a little ironi 
cally as wise in their own conceit, to reprove the di 
visions, before objected to them, yet the logical inference, 
drawn from an appeal to men of such a character, is not 
at all weakened by- the sarcasm under which it is con 
veyed. My meaning is, we may fairly conclude, that 
St. Paul s reasoning is such as, in his opinion, wise men 
would not disdain to weigh ; and so regularly conducted, 
that wise men would acknowledge to be of force. In a 
word, pursued with that science and exactness, which 
leaves no room for the pretence of its having a loose, 
popular, or inaccurate meaning. 

Whence we may collect, in the first place, that the Cup 
of blessing is not merely a general commemoration of a 
dead Benefactor, but principally a commemoration of the 
DEATH AND FASSio]\ r of that Benefactor. It is the 
Communion of the blood of Christ ; an expression, as we 
have shewn, of the utmost elegance to denote a feast 
upon Sacrifice. 

The inference which the Apostle draws from it, puts 
his meaning out of question For we being many (says 
he) are one bread, and one body : for ice are all partakers 
of that one bread: i.e. Our being partakers of one 
bread, in the communion, makes us, of MANY (which we 
are by nature), to become (by grace; ONE BODY in 
Christ. This inference is manifestly just, if the Rife be 
of the nature of a Feast upon Sacrifice ; for then the Com 
munion of the body and blood of Christ unites the Re 
ceivers into one body, by an equal distribution of one 
common benefit. But if it be merely the Commemoration 
of a dead benefactor, it leaves the Receivers as it found 
them ; not one body, incorporated by a common benefit, 
hut many separate individuals, professing one common 

* \ Cor. x. 15 21. 



The Apostle having thus represented the LAST SUP 
PER to be of the nature of a Feast upon Sacrifice, for 
the truth of which he appeals to their own conceptions 
.of it the cup of blessing, is it not the Commit; d-m? &c. 
the bread ic hick &.-c break, is it not the Communion? c. 
lie then endeavours to convince them of the impiety 
of their behaviour, from the nature of those feasts, as it 
v,as understood both by Jews and Gentiles; who alike 
held, that they wno EAT OF THE SACRIFICKS \v 
PARTAKERS OF THE ALTAR: i.e. had. the benefits of 
the .Sacrifice. But what had these caters of the thir^x 
sacrificed, in common with the Partakers of the bread 
and wine in the LAST SUPPER, if this Supper was not a 
feast of the same kind with the sacrificial Feasts? If the 
three religious Feasts, Pagan, Jewish, and Christian, had 
not one common nature * , how could the Apostle have 
inferred that this intercommunity w r as absolutely incon 
sistent? Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup 
f)f Devils* For though there might be impiety in the 
promiscuous use of Pagan and Christian Rites; yet the 
inconsistency arises from their having one common na 
ture, which, springing from contrary originals., destroys 
one another s effects. The reasoning stands thus Those 
who eat of the Sacrifice, are partakers of the Altar ; 
that is, arc partakers of the benefits of the Sacrifice, 
These benefits, whether real or imaginary, were confirmed 
by a pact or convention between the Sacrifice!* and his 
God. They who eat in the feast on that Sacrijicc are par 
takers of the supposed benefits of the Sacrifice, and, conse 
quently, are Parties to the federal Rites which confirmed 
those benefits : so that the same Man could not, con 
sistently with himself, be Partaker of both tables, the 
Lord s table and that of Devils. 

This argument, St. Paul urges to the Wise Man, whose 
practice he is here exposing. And we see, it turns alto 
gether on the Postulatu in agreed on, " that the Last 
Supper is of the nature of a feast upon Sacrifice." 

Now, if, instead of this idea, we substitute that other 
of the Sociuians, That the Last Supper is a mere com 
memoration of a dead Benefactor, all the force of this 
reasoning disappears and vanishes. For, although a rea- 

* See note [I] at th<" end of this Book. 



sonable man cannot execute two federal conventions, 
winch destroy one another (the inconsistency here charged 
upon the Corinthians), vet he might celebrate, without 
absurdity, though not without impiety, a federal Rite in 
one religion, an:! a bare remembrance of a deceased 
Jjenefaetor in another. 

Further, the same Apostle, in correcting another abuse 
in the celebration of the Lord a Supper, takes occasion, 
once again, to declare the N AT. m: of this holy Rite. - 
IIi. ; Corinthians, as appears by the next Chapter*, had 
been guilty of eating the bread and iclne in a very inde 
cent manner, confdunaing ic iih the convivial (loin;;.-, in 
their ordinary repasts; where charity arid sobriety had 
been too jfren violated This fiuill y behaviour, by sncli 
an indiscriminate celebration, the Apostle calls the being 

guilty oj the body and hiood c/ CJifffi: m a, charge iiimio- 
derately exaggerated, wore the Last Supper a mere com* 
mtmo ration of a dead Benefactor. r l, he Corinthians did 
riot make a fit distinction between their more ordinary 
food, and their eating and drinking in memory of a de 
ceased Frieml. This, witpout doubt, was a high inde 
corum ; yet, to rank such delinquents with the JMurdcra s 
of the Lord of life, is a severity in which we can see 
neither justice in the sentence, nor propriety in the terms 
of it. But let us only Suppose (\vhat we have indeed 
proved), -that St. Paul regarded the Last Supper as a 

jtast upon Sacrifice, that is, a Rite in, which the benefits 
of Christ s death and passion were, in a certain manner, 
conveyed, in a proper celebration, thus impiously abused; 
and then the charge is fairly and justly made out. The 
profanation of such a Rite was, indeed, aiding and assist- 
Jng in the crime of his Murderers, as far forth as it ren 
dered his death ineffectual to the Participants ; and there 
fore properly compared to the prodigious enormity of that 
impious act. 

Such then, I presume, is the true nature of the LORD S 
SUPPER. And were the adjusting an exact notion of it a 
matter of mere speculation, I should have been much 

.shorter; and have left the discussion of it (under the 
simple idea of a religious custom of Christian Antiquity) 
to the Ecclesiastical. Historian, 

* i Cor. xi. 27, 



But the Institution abounds with important conse 
quences, in support of the Catholic Doctrine, which I 
here pretend to illustrate and confirm. For, if the Last 
Supper ;be a feast i/pon sacrifice^ .-the unavoidable conse 
quence is, that the death of Christ was a real Sacri 
fice. It being the highest absurdity to believe, that a 
nitei was instituted on tne supposition of a real Sacrifice., 
und to keep such Sacrifice in perpetual memory, and yet 
that no real Sacrifice, thus commemorated, ever had exist 
ence ; but only the shadow of one, under a figure of Speech, 

And now it is high time to call again upon the 
SOCIXIAXS to examine and review this whole matter. 

The Writers of the New Testament unanimously and 
invariably call the Death of Christ on the Cross, A SA 
CRIFICE. To this, the SOCIXIANS reply, " We confess, 
indeed, that those Writers do thus uniformly qualify the 
Death of Christ, But their Phraseology abounds with 
YIGURATI VE TERMS ; and.tlie word SACRIFICE .is plainly 
and eminently of this number. .... When the Death of 
Christ, so -highly beneficial to mankind, was the subject of 
their discourse, they could not enforce the value of those 
Benefits so intelligibly and strongly amongst Men, who 
had -been taught to conceive that the highest benefits were 
conveyed by the tremendous Rite of SACRIFICE. But 
that this was all which those Writers meant, when they 
called Christ s death a SACRIFICE, appears from hence, 
that SACRIFICE, whatever original it had, soon became, 
in practice, a superstitious and an irrational Kite; and 
gloried in an efficacy which right reason disavows, 
namely, a VICARIOUS ATONEMENT ; brought, indeed, by 
Moses, together with other Pagan Rites, into the Law, .ora 
account of the hardness of heart amongst those with 
Avhom their Leader had to deal." This, and a great deal 
more to the same purpose, hath had its effect, to the dis 
credit of the doctrine of R^DEMPTIOX,, on those Men, 
and on others, as ignorant of the true origin and nature 
of SACRIFICE as themselves. 

To remove these objections to a Doctrine so essential 
to our faith, is the reason why I have been so large in 

i. First, From the origin and nature of SACRIFICED 


2. Second! v, 


2. Secondly, That a VICARIOUS ATONEMENT., how 
much soever disclaimed by natural Religion, is, in th 
Jewish Sacrijicct ^nd in the Sacrifice of Christ, a proper 
atonement ; and- may be justified on the surest principles 
of reason. 

3". Thirdly, That the Sacrifices of the Law were 
TYPICAL of the great Sacrifice of Christ. 

4. Fourthly, That were it the purpose of the sacred 
Writers, in their history of Christ s death and passion, ta 
represent it as a REAL SACRIFICED it. is not possible to, 
conceive they, could convey that meaning in more expres 
sive terms than in those which they have employed. 

> And lastly, That Christ s death and passion was, by 
himself, ordained to be perpetually commemorated ; by a 
Rite which declares that, death could be no other than a 
real Sacrifice. 

When the SOGINIANS, I say, have well considered all. 
tliis, they may be asked, with propriety, and modesty, 
whether it can be believed by any reasonable man, that 
all this apparatus was provided for, and bestowed upon,, 
a MERE FIGURE OF SPEECH? Or whether they deserve 
the title they give themselves, of being the only rational 
interpreters of Scripture, who can suppose such- a perver 
sion of Order, in the divine economy, as that it should 
dignify a MERE FIGURE OF SPEECH with preceding. 
TYPES, and a following. FESTIVE INSTITUTION; things, 
most improper for this Service ; and only fitted to mislead 
us in our notions and conceptions concerning this capital 
doctrine of our holy Religion ? 

We have now (it is presumed) settled the true SPE 
CIFIC NATURE of the death of Christ; and having be 
fore spoken largely of its END, we proceed to consider 
the effects of it. 

They are comprised by the sacred Writers in the words*. 

Redemption respects the price paid by JESUS for our 
restoration to eternal life ; and Justification, the accept 
ance of that price by GOD TUB FATHER. 

From these two- terms School Divines coined a third, 
namely, SATISFACTION ; which carries iu< it the ideas 
a debt^wW and accepted,. 


The disputes amongst Divines concerning the sense 
and propriety of the terms, Redemption and Atonement, 
Justification, Satisfaction, c. have been endless, and the 
confusion attending them inexplicable ; chiefly occasioned 
by all parties mistaking their ground, and arguing on the 
principles of XATUIIAL LAW, when they should have 
had recourse to the REVEALED, as now explained. 

But here a difficulty occurs. LIFE AND IMMOR 
TALITY is, throughout the New Testament, considered 
;.is a FREE GIFT ; called so in express words by St. Paul; 
" But not as the offence, (says he) so also is the FREE 
GIFT*/ Yet, we know, a large price was paid for it. 
And this, likewise, the same Apostle agrees to, " \Ve 
were BOUGHT (says he) with a price f." And St. Peter, 
speaking of certain heretics, says, they denied tlie Lord 
that BOUGHT them\. And St. Paul again calls, what he 
had just before entitled A FREE GIFT, A PURCHASED 

To clear up this matter, and to reconcile the Apostle 
to himself, who certainly was neither defective in natural 
-sense, nor in artificial logic, let us once again remind the 
reader, that Life mid Immortality, bestowed on Adam 
in Paradise, was a FREE GIFT, as appears from the 
history of his Creation. As a free gift, it was taken 
"back by the Donor, when Adam fell ; to which resump 
tion, our original natural rights are not subject; since 
natural Religion teacheth, that sincere repentance alone 
will reinstate us in the possession of those rights, which 
our crimes had suspended. So that when this free gift, 
forfeited by tiiv first Adam, was recovered by the second, 
its nature -continuing; .the same, it must still remain & free 
gift ; a gift to which .man, by and at his creation, had 
no claim ; a gift which Natural Religion did not bestow. 

But, if misled by measuring this revealed mystery of 
human redemption, by the scant idea of human trans 
actions, where a free gift and a purchased benefit are 
commonly opposed to one another, yet even here we may 
be able to set ourselves right; since, with regard toman, 
the character of a free gift remains to immortality 
restored. For v the price paid for forfeited man, was not 

* Rom. v. 15. t i Cor. vi. ^o. vii. 23. 

% 2 Pet. ii. i. Fph. i. 14. 



paid by him, but by a Redeemer of Divine extraction, 
who* was pleased, by participating of man s nature, to 
stand in his stead. Hence the sacred Writers seeing, 
in this case, the perfect agreement between a FREE GIFT 
and d PURCHASED POSSESSION, sometimes call it by the 
one, and sometimes by the other name. 

C H A P. III. 

SO much for the MEANS of recovering what was 
lost by Adams transgression. 

In the entrance on this subject, I cautioned the Reader 
to keep in mind the distinction between the MEANS of 
recovering a lost benefit, and the CONDITION annexed 
to the enjoyment of that benefit, when recovered, as two 
different tilings, to be separately considered, and in their 

With regard to the MEANS, (already explained at 
large) it hath been shewn, that they were of an arbitrary 
nature, at God s good pleasure to appoint ; unrestrained 
by any thing he had established in the general system ot 
his moral government of man. 

These MEANS, had not cur holy Religion revealed 
them, could not, otherwise, have been known. 

They were the DEATH AND SACRIFICE of his ever 
blessed Son, MeeKtititfg for us. 

And now, Man being restored to his forfeited Inherit 
ance, the secure possession of it stiil depended, as it did IB 
the original grant, on the performance of a CONDITION. 

We have already shewn, Why that Jlrst Condition 
was the observance of a POSITIVE COMMAND. Which 
reasoning, if it have any force, proves, that the new con 
dition, annexed to the recovered blessing, must be the 
observance of a POSITIVE COMMAND likewise. 

IMMORTALITY (as hath been shewn) was a FUSE 
GIFT, as well when recovered, as when originally given :. 
which might be bestowed, or recovered when forfeited, 
on what Condition the Divine Donor should be pleased 
to annex to it. 

Nay, if we consider the nature of the whole economy, 
we shall find it could not well be given, or restored whez* 



lost, on any other condition than the observance of a 
positive Command, since the performance of MORAL DUTY 
was the condition already appropriated, by Natural 
Religion, to the procurement of GOD S FAVOUR. 
r It is true, had IMMORTALITY not been a free gift, 
but what Man had a right to, on his Creation, while 
under the government of Natural Religion, the con 
dition annexed to immortality might have been the per 
form aace of Moral Duty. 

And indeed, those who so far mistake immortality as 
to esteem it a RIGHT, inherent in our nature, contend 
strongly for the conditions being of a moral kind , and 
that the command not to eat of the Tree of good and 
evil, enjoined to Man in Paradise, is so to be understood, 
though delivered under the cover of an Allegory. 

But besides the reason given to evince this mistake, 
another arises from the sacred Writer s not explaining 
this pretended Allegory : for where an Allegory contains 
a precept respecting the whole of moral duty, it can never 
be too plainly nor fully delivered. There would be none 
of this necessity if both the first and second condition of 
immortal Life were of a positive nature, though delivered 
in allegoric terms which spoke for themselves ; for then 
the chief use of an interpretation had been little more 
than the gratification of our curiosity. 

Allow, therefore, the reasoning here offered to explain 
the nature of the condition annexed to the free gift (when 
iirst given, and when, after forfeiture, restored) to be 
solid and convincing, and it opens to us the abundant 
goodness of our Maker; who, that the possession of this 
recovered blessing might be no longer precarious, (as it 
was when first bestowed, on the condition, to Do or to 
forbear Doing) was graciously pleased to change one 
positive Command for another ; and, instead of some 
thing to be Done, hath now required of us something TO 
BE BELIEVED. From henceforth the free gift of im 
mortality is become more permanent and certain : a 
GRACE, which the very nature of the new Dispensation 
would lead us to hope for and expect ; whereby IMMOR 
TAL LIFE under the Gospel, like the FAVOUR OF THE 
J)EITY under natural Religion, is now, when forfeited, 
to be regained by REPENTANCE. . 

7 So 


So much reason, order, and beauty is seen in the 
various parts of God s moral Government of Man, when 
compared and explained by one another. 

The new CONDITION, as we say, is FAITH IN THE 
REDEEMER; or our owning and receiving him as the 
promised Messiah, by whom alone we are to receive that 
salvation, procured for us by the Sacrifice of himself on 
the Cross. i;a 

And now, we begin to have some reasonable Notion 
of that great and fundamental principle of Christianity, 
that FAITH ALONE JUSTIFIETH, or, in other words, is 
the sok condition of recovering the possession of what we 
lost by ADAM. 

This great Truth, though made the foundation of the 
Gospel of Jesus, yet (its reason lying hid, or not care 
fully sought for, and the little of it that was seen being 
horribly abused) Believers, as well as Unbelievers, have, 
too generally, concurred in condemning, as absurd in 
speculation, and fanatical and hurtful in practice. But 
the Divine who hath carefully studied the nature of 
God s moral or religious Dispensations, throughout all 
their parts, will be easily disposed to rest the whole of 
the Christian cause on the reasonableness, the propriety, 
and even the necessity of this capital Principle. 

We have now shewn, 1st, That LIFE AND IMMOR 
TALITY is, in its nature, a FREE GIFT; and that holy 
Scripture always represents it under this idea : 2dly, 
That the benefit, which Natural Religion informs us we 
have to expect from our great Master is, simply, a 
reward for well-doing : A reward, indeed, which will be 
abundant ; for though we be unprofitable servants, yet is 
he a most bountiful Master. But ABUNDANT and 
ETERNAL belong to different Systems. 

Man, from his Creation, to his entrance into Paradise, 
was, as hath been shewn, subject to the Lazv of Natural 
Religion only. From thenceforth, to his expulsion from 
Paradise, Revealed Religion superinduced to the Natural, 
was- to be his Guide: whereby, to GOD S FAVOUR (the 
sanction of Natural Religion) was added IMMOR 
TALITY (the sanction of the Revealed;) not on con 
dition of his observance of moral duties ; for that was 
the condition of God s favour under Natural Religion ; 

VOL. VI. X but 


but 011 condition of his obedience to a positive com 

But who are they, who, on the rccovc?\y of the free 
gift of immortality, are qualified to claim it ? Certainly 
none but those who arc already entitled to some reward 
.by the Religion of Mature ; which Religion accompanies 
the Revealed throughout all its various Dispensations : 
and on which, they are all founded. 

But to make this great principle of JUSTIFICATION 
BY FAITH ALONE still more clear, let us suppose that), 
at the publication of the Gospel, all to whom the glad 
tidings of immortality were offered, on the condition of 
faith in Jesus, had been moral or virtuous men ; and, on 
that account, entitled (as natural Religion teacheth) to 
the favour of God, and an abundant reward; is it not 
self-evident, that FAITH ALONE, exclusive of the con^ 
dition of <*ood works, would, in that case, have beea 
the very thing which justified^ or entitled to life ever 
lasting ? 

But are good work*, therefore, of no use in the Chris 
tian system ? So far from that impiety, good works are 
seen, "by this explanation, to be of the greatest avail ; as 
they render Men the only capable Subjects of this 


This is the true use and value of WORKS with regard 
to FAITH ; and greater canriot be conceived. Hence k 
appears, that JUSTIFY INC; FAITH is so far from excluding 
GOOD WOUKS, that it necessarily requires them. But 
how? Not as sharing in that. JUSTIFICATION ; but as 
procuring for us a title to God sjarour in general, they 
become the tfucilijication of that inestimable Reward, 
revealed by the Gospel, to be obtained by FAITH 


, To illustrate this matter by a familiar instance : Sup 
pose a British Monarch should bestow, in Jree gifa 
a certain portion of his own Domaincs* upon such of his 
subjects who should perform a certain service, to which 
they were not obliged by the stated Laws of that society 
under which they lived ; it is evident, that the perform 
ance of this Lust engtigcwent ONLY would be the thing 
which entitled them tothe,/ree gift: although that which 
* T* which immortality may be well compared, 



gave them a claim to protection, as Subjects, in the enjoy 
ment of THEIR OWN PROPERTY*, acquired by observing 
the terms of the contract between Subjects and Sovereign, 
Miis the necessary qualification to their claim of the free 
gift ; since it would be absurd to suppose that this gift 
was intended for Rebels and Traitors, or for any but 
good and faithful servants of the King and Community. 

This, I presume, is the true, as it certainly is the only 
consistent explanation,, which hath been hitherto given of 
might St. Paul reprove the ignorance or licence of certain 
of his converts at Rome, in his question (which, under 
his authority, we have asked before) Do we then make 
void the LAW through FAITH? God forbid! Yea, ice 


" But how (it may be asked) is the Law of Works 
ESTABLISHED by the Christian Doctrine of Faith ? 
For by the Law of Works, the Apostle could mean no 
other than the Law of Nature ; he having again and 
again told us, the Law of J\ loses, as distinguished from 
the Law of Nature, was abolished by the Law of Christ. 
I answer, This Law of Works was indeed ESTABLISHED, 
and hi the most substantial manner, by the doctrine of 
Faith, as these // orks are the very foundation tf justify 
ing Faith ; the qualification of all who are entitled to the 
Fruits of that Faith, viz, LIFE AND IMMORTALITY. 

But further, to prevent all mistakes on this important 
subject, (if the wisest provisions of Heaven could have 
prevented the effects of human perversity, without violat 
ing freedom of will) God was pleased to send JOHN 
THE BAPTIST, as the Forerunner of his blessed Son, 
to proclaim and KEPUBUSII this great principle of 
Natural Religion, PARDON ox REPENTANCE Repent 
ye, for the kingdom, of heaven is at luntd ^. A necessary 
CALL to procure Subjects to this new Kingdom, just 
ready to be erected, where LIFE AND IMMORTALITY 
was to be obtained by Faith ; but such a Faith as is 
ounded on those Wvrks which Natural Religion requires 
o be performed ; or, when neglected, the omission or 
transgression to be atoned for by REPENTANCE. 

* To -which the reward offered by natural religion may be well 
pompui<?d. t Rom. in. 31 . j Alatt.ii. 2. 

x a This 


This shews the extreme folly of what hath been 
asserted by certain of our unwary Friends, and echoed 
back to us by the Enemies of our holy faith, that the 
RELIGION OF NATURE ; whereas, it now appears, that 
the whole of THIS REPUULICATIOX amounts to no 
more than a republication of one great principle of 
Natural Religion, viz. Pardon on Repentance ; and this, 
as the foundation of (and in order to introduce and render 
effectual) our FAITH IN CHRIST, the great principle of 
the Revealed. 

To proceed. It is with regard to Johns Character 
of a Preacher of Moral Righteousness, on the principle* 
of Natural Religion, that Jesus says of him,: Amongst 
them that are born of women hath not risen a greater 
than John (he Baptist : notwithstanding^ he that is least 
in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he * : this least 
in the kingdom of heaven is greater (he says) than John, 
i.e. greater in office. JOHN only proclaimed and re- 
published that great Principle of Natural Religion, 
the doing WORKS meet for Repentance^. Whereas 
the Disciples of Jesus were the Promulgators of the 
efficacy of Revealed Religion SAVING FAITH Greater 
in their spiritual gifts and graces. They worked Miracles. 
John worked no Miracle. The reason is obvious : 
MIRACLES are the necessary CREDENTIALS of men sent 
by God to promulge a new Rtvelation. The preaching 
up of Natural Religion (which was John s office) needed 
none of these Credentials: its truth having been engraved 
in the breasts of every one, when God created Man in 
his own Image. 

But this is not all. The better to.sscure tiii^ natural 
Foundation of SAVING FAITH, Jems himself, in his 
entrance on his Ministry, thought fit to repeat and con* 
-firm the Mission of John; and in the very words of his 
Forerunner REPENT, ^0; the kingdom of heaven is at 
hand%. On this account, I suppose, it was that Herod, 
hearing that a new Prophet was just arisen, who began 
liiajMimstry like John, with preaching repent cwce^ becausp 
the kingdom of heaven was at hand, mistook him for 
John risen from the dead ; and being alarmed at the 
* IK f Acts xx vi. 20. { Matt. iv. 17. 



name of Kingdom, joined to the report of Miracles, now 
first performed by him, concluded, he was returned to 
life, with the accession of new powers : Herod, I say, in 
his fright, cries out, John the Baptist, whom I beheaded, 
4s risen from the dead, and THEREFORE mighty works 
do shew forth themselves in him *. A natural sentiment 
-on this occasion. For cruelty, in its suspicions, cora- 
.monly adds terror- to superstition. 

Yea,- further, when Jems first sent out his Disciples 
to give notice of his Gospel, they, too, were directed to 
enforce this previous and necessary Truth : And they 
went and preached that men should repent \. 

And they whom he left behind him at his ascension 
were likewise directed to perform the same office. They 
began their work with the doctrine of REPENTANCE, 
only changing the Baptism of John into that of .Jesus. 
St. Peter, in his Iirst discourse to all the dwellers at 
Jerusalem, who enquired of him into the way oj sal 
vation, speaks in this manner : Repent, and be baptized, 
every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ^. 

St. Paul tells Agrippa, that lie began his Mission with 
exhorting both Jews and Gentiles, that they should 
repent, and turn to Gad, and do WORKS meet for repent- 
ance\. And as he began with repentance, so he ends 
with it, where, in his Epistle to the Hebrews, heexpresseth 
himself in . this manner, " Therefore leaving the PRIN- 
" CIPLES of. the Doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto 
" PERFECTION ; not laying again the FOUNDATION of 
" repentance from dead works, andoftkith towards God." 
These are the great principles of Natural Religion, 
which Christ made the FOUNDATION or his Gospel. 
Iniquity is called dead by Faith towards God 
is meant simple belief in him ; and alludes to the same 
Apostle s definition of Natural Religion where he says, 
he that comet h to God must BELIEVE that he is, and that 
he is a reicarder of them that diligently neelt him. The 
sense of which is this, " Sink not back ^gain to, nor 
" rest in that Principle of Natural Religicn, after you 
" have made it (as your Master requires you should) the 
"foundation of his Gospel/ 

* Matt. xiv. 2. t Actsii. 38. 

J Acts xx vi. Acts xx vi. 

x 3 But 


But as there are not only first principles in Natural 
Religion, but likewise in the Revealed, the Apostle goes 
on with an account of these likewise The doctrines of 
Baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of the resur 
rection of the dead, and of eternal judgement. Now these 
first principles of the GOSPEL we are likewise forbid to 
rest in, no less than in thosey/rs/ principles of NATURAL 
RELIGION , which the Apostle began with it follows 
(as we are directed) that we should GO ON UNTO PER 
FECTION. But if it he asked, What was this doctrine 
of perfection? I answer, it was that great MYSTERY, 
iirst revealed by the Gospel, which explains our loss by 
the disobedience of Adam, and the punishment attending 
it, together with the recovery of that loss by Christ Jesus, 
*vho was graciously pleased to become our MEDIATOR; 
and more than that, by virtue of his death and sufferings 
on the cross, our REDEEMER likewise, together \\ith all 
the circumstances attending this wonderful transaction of 
human redemption. 

This Doctrine of Perfection, the Apostle promises to 
explain to them, if God affords him leisure and a fitting 
opportunity if Gcd (says he) per nut *. This, for some 
wise ends of his Providence, God did not permit. Nor 
have we any reason to complain, as he endowed his 
inspired servants, in general, both with leisure and abili 
ties to enrich the world with the noblest treasures of 
divine knowledge, ordained to enlighten and accompany 
his Church till the consummation of all things. 

Thus, on tiie whole, it appears, even by the principle 
here explained, of S A EVA TIG x in- FAITH ALONE, that 

Here let us stop a moment, to deplore the condition 
of human h indne ss, always running into opposite ex 
tremes. \Vhik. one sort of Believers (as we have observed) 
can sec no more in the Gospel than a Republication of 
the Religion (f Nature; and another are so far from 
owning, that Natural Religion is the foundation of 
the Revealed, that they are ready to deny that Natural 

* Tub. vi. i, a, 3, 



These, indeed, are portentous opinions; yet less so 
fchan that of our RATIONALISTS, who deny what Scrip 
ture has, in so many words, so often repeated, SALVA 

But they had mistaken the Gospel -doctrine of salvation 
nnd justification for no more than God s Jicrcour indefi 
nitely, as taught by Natural Religion -, whereas the words 
signify ETERNAL LIFE, brought to light and defined by 
the Gospel. What occasioned their confounding two things 
so different, was an unsuspected error, full as gross, namely, 
\k\akN(ti>ural Religion, in teaching a reward for well-doing, 
taught an eternal Reward. An error into which these 
men could scarce have fallen, had they distinguished the 
Religion of Nature, to which Adam became -subject on 
his creation, from that Religion which was revealed unto 
him when he entered Paradise. 

This hath been rectified at large towards the beginning 
of this Discourse; and to what important purposes, the 
Reader may now understand. 

Indeed, had Natural Religion promised life and 
immortality far zceU-4ouig, then would God s two Dis 
pensations have contradicted one another ; as giving 
immortality to WORKS by Natural Religion, and imnwr- 
ialtiy to FA mi hy the Rcr-cakd. 

But there are no contradictions in the Economy of 
God s moral Government. All such arc the spawn of 
human fy. stews, the mis-shapen issue of artificial Theo 
logy. And if one thing, in sacred Scripture, seems to 
look thus asquint upon another, we may he assured it 
arises from the vitiated Organs of the Observer. 

To instance, in the famous case (so apposite to our 
present purpose) of the Apostles, PALL and JAMES; 
whom ignorant Interpreters have set at variance. 


But St. James seems to speak another language f 
You SEE THEN, ho~c that by WORKS a man is JUSTI* 


The assertion of each Apostle is (we see) a CONCLU 
SION from some preceding PREMISES. These are, first 
* llora. 11^28, t Mis General Epistle, chap. ii. 24. 

^ 4 of 


of all, to be considered, ere we can determine concerning 
the sense of either conclusion, where the same capital 
word is employed, by both Writers, in common. 

St. Paul having explained (for that is his subject) the 
nature of the GOSP :L COVENANT, whereby w r e are 
restored to the Inheritance which we lost by Adams trans 
gression, namely, lye and immortality, ends his argu 
ment in this manner Therefore we conclude that a man 
is JUSTIFIED BY FAITH [i.e. entitled to this recovered 
benefit by virtue of Faith] WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE 
LAW, [which are Works. } We have shewn how true this 
position is ; WORKS being what justifies or entitles us to 
the favour of God, as taught by Natural Religion ; the 
foundation, indeed, of the Gospel- Covenant; which pro- 
miseth life and immortality to FAITH ALONE. 

But St. James, where he seems to talk so differently 
from Paul, \vas enforcing a very different thing, namely, 
the obligation of MORAL DUTY, as taught by Natural 
Religion, though not exclusive of the Revealed; for he 
exemplifies it by the precepts of the DECALOGUE ; which, 
though a moral part of the LAW, is supported equally on 
the two Religions, Natural and Revealed. He, therefore, 
concludes his argument in this manner Thu^wesee^how 
that by WORKS A MAN is JUSTIFIED, and not by Faith 

llence it appears, that the two Apostles use the 
word JUST 1 1 ICA i ION, in these places, in very different 
senses. St. Paul means by it, a title to eternal life, on 
the terms of Revealed Religion ; and St. James, a title 
to God s favour indefinitely, on the terms of Natural 

Neither can they be fairly charged with obscurity 
in- using an undefined term in different significations, 
since, had their Readers but attended to the different 
subjects eacli apostle ^as then treating, and both in an 
equally clear and obvious manner, the objectors would 
have seen, there was not the least need of a formal 
definition to ascertain the meaning of either. 

On the uhok-, it appears, that the two Apostles are 
.perfectly consistent in their reasoning on this question. 
Whose words, when aptly put together, produce this com 
plete aud capital Truth, " WO&KS entitle us to a reward 

indefinitely ; 


indefinitely; FAITH to the reward si eternal life: But as 
he who deserves no reward at all, can never deserve the 
reward si eternal life, therefore the first step to the greater 
blessing must needs be a title to the lesser." 

St. PAUL S purpose was to vindicate the use and honour 
of the Gospel immjudaising Christians, by shewing, that 
the MORAL WORKS of the Jewish Law (the same with 
those of Natural Law} did not entitle the observers to 
eternal life; this being the specific reward which the 
Gospel bestows, and bestows it on FAITH alone. 

St. JAMES S purpose was to vindicate the use and 
honour of Natural Religion, from the corrupt comments 
of those pretended Christians, who flattered themselves 
in their vices with the hopes of obtaining eternal life by 
FAITH, without being previously qualified for the FAVOUR 
of God, by the performance of those good works which 
Natural Religion enjoins : and so vitiating the integrity, 
and destroying the very nature of FAITH itself. A dread 
ful Venom, which appeared early, and, like a leprosy, 
soon overspread the face of the Church ; at present known 
by the detested name of Ax TIN OM IAN ISM. 

But to leave nothing unanswered on so important a 
question, I will suppose an Objector may persist in his 
reply. Be it granted that the two Apostles are" thus 
made consistent with one another ; a stronger objection 
still remains to the doctrine of Salvation by FAITH 
ALONE, and that is the Declaration of Christ himselij 
who gives this Salvation or Justification to WORKS ^ 
where, in his account of his second coming to judge the 
world, he thus pronounces on the final doom of the 
Nations assembled round his Throne, To the RIGH 
TEOUS, he says, Come ye blessed of my Father, INHERIT 

DATION OF THE WORLD. For I was an hung red, and ye 
gave me meat , I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink ; / 
was a stranger, and ye took me in-, I was naked, and ye 
clothed me ; / was sick, and ye visited me ; / was in 
prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the RIGHTEOUS 
answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred 
and fed thee ? or thirsty, and gave thee drink ? When 
saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? naked and 
clothed ihee ? or when mw we thee sick, or in prison, and 



came unto thce? Ami the KING si Kill nnsiccr and say 
unto them, Verily^ I say unto you, forasmuch as yc have 
done it unto one of the least of these my Brethren, yc 
hare, done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them 
on the left hand, Depart from me, ye caned, into ever 
lasting jirc, prepared jor the Devil and his angels. 
For I was an hungred, and ye gare we no meat; 1 teas 
thirsty, and ye gave me no drink ; / was a .stranger, 
end ye took me not in; naked, and ye clothed me not: 
sick and in prison and ye visited me not. Then shall 
they also ansicer him, saying. Loan, when saw we thce 
an hundred, or athirst, or a stranger or naked, or 
sick or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then 
shall he answer them, saying, Ferity I say unto you 
inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, 
yc did it not unto me*. 

To explain this, which seems to bear so hard against 
us, we must first of all observe the r qreat care and caution 
in the divine Founder of our Faith, and of liis Apostles, 
to whom he committed the trust of proclaiming it to the 
"World; the care, 1 say, that this capital Doctrine of his 
not be mistaken or abused, in making FAITH supersede 
those WORKS which Natural Religion requires as neces 
sary to procure th&Javour of (rod. WORKS, which we 
have shewn to be the only true foundation of that FA IT if 
WHICH ALOXE JUSTIFIES. And the work! hath had full 
experience of the horrid ABUSES occasioned by Men s 
placing FAITH on any other foundation. 

So that were there no more in this ticenical Represen 
tation of the last Judgment than the purpose to make 
WORKS bear so considerable a part in it, the Represen 
tation had been still highly expedient. But there was a 
great deal more. 

Hold, says an Objector; Let us first ask how this 
Scene can at all stand \\ith your System, which teachcth, 
" that WORKS only entitle to the reward indefinitely^ and 
tliat it is FA ITII which entitles to the reward of eternal life : 
for these RIGHTEOUS, in the text, are rewarded with that 
which is onlv due to the FAITHFUI, namely, eternal 


* Matt. xxv. 34 f 5. 

I was 


I was about to explain another important use of this 
Representation, which you will now find is a full answer 
to your Objection. 

Jesus, in the very mode of obviating the above-men 
tioned abuses (for they were those abuses which it was 
his purpose here to obviate), hath, with the most divine 
energy and address, instructed us in another important 


TO THE TIME OF THE FALL. The Right cons, or the 
performers of good Works, are here told, that they shall 
INHERIT the Kingdom of Christ, PREPARED FOR THEM 
from the foundation of the World. Who were these, here 
called, Righteous? Certainly such who had never heard 
of Christ, or been made acquainted with the terms of the 
Gospel ; such who had obeyed the dictates of Natural 
Religion ; and not having the LAW of revealed Religion, 
were (as the Apostle says) a Law unto tliemelves*. Thiv 
will appear evident to those who consider the nature and 
purpose of this Representation of the last Judgment ; 
when all Nations, or the whole Race of Mankind, as 
well those who lived before, as those who came after 
the Advent of the Son of God, are to appear at his 

The tremendous Session, here represented, proceeds 
in order. They who lived before the coming of Christ, 
are the first who are set to the Bar, whether for reward, 
or for condemnation. They who lived after were to come 
next. But, with the first, the Scene closes. 

For Jesus had already explained the terms of Salvation 
to all the followers of the Gospel. Concerning the con 
dition of these there could be no doubt. It might become 
a question amongst them, how those who had never 
heard of Christ were to be treated ; and whether they 
were to be made partakers of-the benefits of his Death 
and Passion; and likewise, upon what terms. To re 
solve those points, was the design of this moral Picture. 

These Righteous are justified or saved. But how ? 

surely not by FAITH. For, the Apostle tells us, that 

FAITH cometh by /tea ring; and hearing by the word of 

Cod]\ That is, " The doctrine ot justifying Fauh 

* Horn. ii. 14. f Rom.x. 17. 



cannot be learnt from Natural Religion ; but is to be 
taught by the Messengers of the Revealed, speaking by 
the Spirit of God." The just ijicatiwi of these Righteous, 
therefore, must needs be by WORKS; the natural foun 
dation on which all revealed FAITH is built. 

But to shew still more evidently, and sensibly, that the 
Righteous, in the Text, were those who had never heard 
of Christ, till they came to Judgment, ue must observe, 
that as soon as they had been told what kind of WORKS 
they were which procured their Salvation, namely, ad 
ministering to this their Lord when he was a stranger, 
ruiked, sick, and in prison, they are made to reply Lord, 
when saw we thee a stranger, naked, sick, and in prison? 
A Question, which they, who, in this life, had heard of 
Christ, could never ask ; since their Lord had often told 
his Followers, that the men who did any of these good 
Works to the least of their distressed Brethren, did them 
unto him : that is, gained the same benefit by them, as 
if done to himself. 

In a word, this important REPRESENTATION instructs 
us in these two points of Doctrine: First, That the 
KINGDOM, whose blessings were produced by the death 
and passion of Christ, w^as secured to us even from the 
foundation of the world: and Secondly, That it was, 
actual Righteousness, as well as imputame, which made 
those who had never heard explicitly of CHRIST, to 
become partakers of his merits. 

HAVING now, at length, gone through this GENERAL 

TIAN RELIGION; first, by an explanation of the MEANS 
by which we are enabled to recover the benefits lost by 
Adam s transgression ; and, secondly, by an explanation 

of the CONDITION annexed to the enjoyment of those 
benefits, when recovered : We proceed to ^vhat remains 
of our general view. This Religion, as it was the LAST 
REVELATION of Ciod s Will to Man, so it was the com 
pletion of all that preceded; and, therefore, when truly 

^explained, must needs add the UTMOST FORCE AND 
LIGHT to every thing that, in the foregoing Volumes of 


the DIVINE LEGATION, hath been advanced, concerning 


We have already observed how graciously the Divine- 
Goodness displayed itself, in the RESTORATION of our 
lost Inheritance, by changing the condition annexed to 
eternal life, from something to be DONE, to something 
to be BELIEVED. And this was FAITH IN OUR RE 
DEEMER. For by such a change, this important bless-* 
ing became less subject to a new loss or danger. 

But this was not all. The same bountiful Lord of life 
did. for its further security, impart to every true Believer, 
the strength and light of his HOLY SPIRIT to support 
FAITH in working out our Salvation*. 

Natural Reason, indeed, contemplating the attributes 
of the Deity, discovered to us, that when human abilities 
alone are too weak to support us in the performance and 
discharge of moral duty, God will lend his helping-hand 
to aid our sincere endeavours. 

But to manifest to us with what more abundant mea 
sure this aid is dispensed, under the GOSPEL, our blessed 
Redeemer hath minutely explained all that relates to 
the PERSON and to the operations of the- Divine Dis 
penser, called the HOLY SPIRIT; whom the FATHER and 
the SON have, for the further security of this recovered 
blessing, been pleased to associate with themselves in 
the administration of this economy. Which divine Person 
bears his share, with the other two, in the actual RE 

Thus far as to his NATU-RE. By which it 1 appears, 
that this species of divine assistance, which our holy 
Religion calls GRACE, is to be understood as one 
of the peculiar blessings bestowed upon the FAIT" UL ; 
and to be reckoned in that number. The wojds of 
St. John makes this truth still more apparent. Thi s 
(saith he) Jesus spake of the SPIRIT, which they that 
believe on him. should receive. For THE HOLY GHOST 

The OFFICE and OPERATION of this holy Spirt, is. 
to support our Faith and tq perfect our Obedience, by 

* See the Doctrine of Grace, vol. viii, of this Edit. 
| Jolm viii. 39. 

enl ghtniing 


enlightening the understanding and by purifying the 

This, the blessed Jesus declares, where he professedly 
treats of the office of the holy Spirit. / will pray the 
Father (says he) and he shall give you another COM 
FORTER, that he may abide with you for ever; even the 
SPIRIT OF TRUTH. He dwelleth in you; and shall be 
in you which is the HOLY GHOST whom the Father 
ah all send in my name: lie sJiall TEACH YOU ALL 


These are the two parts of his office : As the TEA c HER, 
to impress upon the understanding all those practical 
and speculative truths, which constitute the sum and sub 
stance of our holy Religion; and as the COMFORTER, by 
purifying and supporting the will, to enable us to per 
severe in the profession of those truths that constitute the 
body of moral righteousness ; the foundation (as we have 
shewn) of that JUSTIFYING FAITH, to which the Gospel 
hath annexed salvation or eternal life. 

And the economy of the Gospel seemed to require, 
that when this Dispenser of divine assistance, the HOLY 
SPIRIT, was to be clearly revealed, and personally dis 
tinguished, as soon as Jesus was GLORIFIED^, his first 
descent, amongst the Faithful, should be attended with 
signs and wonders, to bear witness to the SAXCTIFIER 


in the same way that they had borne witness to the RE 
DEEMER. These signs were, in both cases, of the same 
nature, and performed for the same ends : First, for 
CREDENTIALS of their mission ; and, secondly, TXDICA- 
TIONS of their office. " When the day of Penticost was 
" fully corne, they [the Apostles] were all, with one 
" accord, in one place ; and suddenly there came a 
" sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and 
" it filled all the house where they were sitting. And 
" there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of 
" fire, and it sat upon each of them : and they were all 
" filled with the HOLY GHOST;- and began to speak 
" with other tongues, as the SPIRIT gave them utter* 
fc ancej." 

This miracle manifested itself in the gift of tongues, 
tfc> the astonished multitude, barbarous and civil, then 
* Johjxiv, 26. -f John vii. 39. J Acts ii. i. et-seq. 



casually assembled from every quarter of the habitable 
Globe, who heard the APOSTLES, (all natives or inha 
bitants of Galilee.) speaking to each of these Strangers, 
in his own mother-tongue. And this being for the ser 
vice and conviction of others, was, in its nature, TEMPO 
RARY *. Other effusions of the holy Spirit were PERMA 
NENT ; and these, instead of being conveyed In a sound 
Jrom heaven asof x HUSHING MIGHTY VVIXD, were onl v 
conveyed and felt in the STILL, SMALL VOICE. For 
these were principally for the use and benefit of the fa 
voured Receiver; who, although he himself was fully 
assured by them of the divine presence, yet could he give 
no sufficient evidence of that Presence to others. 

Thus it appears, that this species of divine assistance, 
which our holy Religion calls GRACE, is to be con 
sidered as one of the peculiar blessings bestowed upon 
the Fttithful. For, as htith been observed, the FATHER 
and the Sox have been graciously pleased to associate, 
in the administration of this new economy, a third divine 
ferson, called in Scripture the HOLY GHOST. 


on his fmt Descent, naturally and happily leads us for 
ward in this iour general view ; by bringing us to the 
consideration of the extraordinary manner in which it 
bath pleased Providence to promulge and propagate the 
Christian Faith. 

Now, as it is apparent to common sense, that an im 
mediate Revelation from Heaven can be firmly esta 
blished no otherwise than by the intervention of MI 
RACLES; and, as we have found, by the sad experience 
of human corruption, that THIS SUPREME EVIDENCE of 
our holy Religion hath been fatally discredited by the 
contagion of lying wonders, deforming almost every 
age of the Church, it will be of the utmost importance 
to discover and fix the bounds of this extraordinary 
Inter position f . 

* See Note [K] at the.endof this Book. 
t See Discourse OH the Resurrection, vol. x. of this; Fdit. 



But a MIRACLE, even when best supported by human 
testimony, needeth to be still further qualified, ere it can 
deserve credit of a rational Believer : namely, that it be 
so connected with the system to which it claims relation, 
as that it be seen to make a part of it, or to be necessary 
to its completion. 

It is otherwise, in Facts, acknowledged to be within 
the verge of nature and human agency. Here all that is 
wanted to recommend them to our belief, is the testi 
mony of knowing and honest Witnesses. 

While in pretended Facts beyond the verge of nature 
and human agency, such as those we call MIRACULOUS, 
much more is required when offered to our belief. The 
controul and arrest of the established Laws of Nature, by 
tiie God and Author of Nature, either mediately or inx- 
mediately, is a thing which COMMON EXPERIENCE hath 
rendered so extremely improbable, that it will at least 
balance the very best human testimony, standing unsup 
ported and alone. And why ? Because ordinary Facts 
carry their CAUSES openly and manifestly along with them : 
Or if not so, yet none are required, as we are convinced 
their causes must be INTRIN SEC ALLY there. But in 
Facts pretended to be miraculous, the immediate efficient 
cause is extrinsical ; and therefore leaves room for doubt 
and uncertainty : or rather, when, in tins case, men per 
ceive no cause, they are apt to conclude there is none ; or, 
in other words, that the report is false aiid groundless. 
So that when the whole evidence of the Fact, deemed 
miraculous, is solely comprised in human testimony, and 
is, in its nature, contrary to UNIFORM EXPERIENCE, th c 
Philosopher will, at least, suspend his belief. 

But though in all MIRACLES, that is, in Facts deemed 
miraculous, the EFFICIENT CAUSE continues unknown ; 
yet, in those which our holy Religion seems to recommend 
to our belief, the FINAL CAUSE always stands apparent. 
And if that cause be so important as to make the Sfiracfe 
necessary to the ends of the DISPENSATION, this is all 
that can be reasonably required to entitle it to our be 
lief; when proposed to us with the same fulness of human 
testimony, which is sufficient to establish a common fact : 
since, in this case, we have the MORA [/ATTRIBUTES OF 
11 THE 


TfiE DEITY to secure us from ^n error, so fafal- to pur 
weliare *. 

And the con&iing our belief of MirftGfcp wtt^ifj tljiese 
bounds, wipes away (as- 1 Conceive) all tfes fi^i^erafel^ 
sophistry of our modern prcteriders p Pfeilo^ophy, both 
at home and abroad, against Mi BACHES, oia f^teeee oi 
their being contrary to^GLNe^AL tx^ER E^g, ia $# 
ordinary course of things- At least, the T&UJ-; Pnii/pr 
SOPHEII so thought, when he made that strict enquiry 
into Truth, towards the conclusion of his immortal 
Work" Though COMMON EXPERIENCE [says he) A.:;p 
" mighty influence on the minds of men to make them 
" give or refuse credit to any thing proposed to their be- 
" iief ; yet there is ONE CASE wherein the STRANGENESS 
" of the facts LESSENS NOT THE ASSENT .to a lair testi- 
" ixiony given of it. Kpr where SUPEEXATCUAL events 
" liath power to change tj:ie cpjurgq of nature, then, under 
u such circuaistaiices, they may be FITTER to procure 
" belief, t>y how much the more tliey are !3YONP OR 


" the proper case of MaiiAC.tjEs, vvhiclj, \\.^il attested, do 
" not only find credit tiiemselves, but give it al&oto other 
" truths which need sycb c.c,njinnaticn$" 

No\v the MIRACLES, which Qhribtianiiy objects to pur 
belief, and which, therefore, demand credit of every rea* 
sonable man, are, and I apprehend .u^ist be 3 quaiified 
in one or other of thes^ three ways : 

I. They must eitlier, in the first place, be such as 
Christ and his inspired Servants and F-Gilovvers are re- 

* Here, by the wny, let me observe, that wh.t i$ now saki gives 
that CiUTFriiiox, which Dr. Middlelon and his Opponents, in a late 
controversy cowcer-tiing MHIACLES, demanded oi one another ; and 
which yet, both Parties, for some reasons or other, declined to give ; 
.namely, some certain mark to enable men to distinguish (for all the 
purposes of Religion) between true and certain Miracles, and those 
which were false or doubtful. 

f Locke s Essay concerning Human Understanding, vol. ii. Chap, 

O/ the Degrees of Assent, 13. p. 286. This great man, we rind, 

understood it to be apparent to common sense, that the belief of an 
immediate Revelation from Heaven could be firmly established no 
otherwise than by the aid of &iiradis. $ut ses thjis truth proved 
more at large as we go along. 

VOL. VI. Y corded 


corded to have performed for the CREDENTIALS of their 

II. Or, secondly, such as make a necessary part in, or 
towards the completion of, the Gospel System. 

III. Or, thirdly and lastly, such as have been performed 
directly to manifest and VERIFY THE DIVINE PREDIC 
TIONS, when impious men have set themselves on at 
tempting to defeat 7 them. 

Wfien a Miracle is wrought (as in the first case) for 
the CREDENTIAL of a Messenger coming with the 
revealed Will of God, to Man, we may safely confide in 
it. Because such a Miracle is so far from being beneath 
the dignity of the occasion, that it is even necessary to 
answer the important purpose of it. Under this Idea, 
it hath, I believe, been generally conceived in every age 
of our holy Religion, till the present. Indeed, it seems 
to have been the constant expectation of Believers, that 
these supernatural attestations should accompany every 
NEW MESSAGE from Heaven; -insomuch that all the 
pretended Revelations in the Pagan World, as well as the 
real in the- Jewish and the Christian, Were constructed on 
this principle of credit. 

But now, in these times, some there are even amongst 
the Ministers of the Gospel, who tell us, they think, or 
at least are hardy enough to teach, that the REASONABLE 
NESS of the Doctrine is the best, and indeed the only true 
evidence of its divine Original. 

If in this" they should not be mistaken, I may, however, 
boast, that I, myself, have, in this Work, greatly strength 
ened this boasted plenitude of evidence. 

But, in reverence to Truth, I hold myself obliged to 
own, that, in my opinion, the REASONABLENESS of a 
Doctrine pretended to come immediately from God, is, 
of itself alone, no PROOF, but a PRESUMPTION only of 
such its divine Original : because, though the excellence 
of a Doctrine (even allowing it to surpass all other moral 
teaching whatsoever) may shew it to be \vortby of God, 
yet, from that sole excellence, we cannot certainly con 
clude that it came immediately from him ; since we know 
not to what heights of moral knowledge the human under 
standing, unassisted by inspiration, may arrive. Not 



even our full experience, that all the Wisdom of Greece 
and Rome comes extremely short of the Wisdom of the 
GOSPEL, can support us in concluding, with certainty, 
that this Gospel was sent immediately from God. We 
can but very doubtfully guess, what excellence may be 
produced by a well-formed and well-cultivated Mind, 
further blessed with a vigorous temperament, and a happy 
organization of the Body. The amazement into which 
Sir Isaac Newton s Discoveries in Nature, threw the 
learned World, as soon as men became able to compre 
hend their Truth and Utility, sufficiently shews, what 
little conception it had, that the human faculties could 
ever rise so high or spread so wide. 

On the whole, therefore, we conclude, that, strictly 
speaking, there is no ground of conviction solid and strong 
enough to bear the weight of so great an interest, but 
that which rises on MIRACLES, worked by the first Mes 
sengers of a new Religion, in support and confirmation 
of their MISSION. 

That is, MIRACLES, and MIRACLES ONLY, demon 
strate that the Doctrine, which is seen to be worthy of 
God, did, indeed, COME IMMEDIATELY from him. 

To. be plain s there is a glaring absurdity in the novel 
fancy here exposed ; of which we can find no instance iij 
the affairs of civil life And civil and religious Policies 


aye conducted on the same principles of Reason, while 
administered in their integrity. For what public Person 
ever imagined, or expected to have it believed," that the 
true and proper CREDENTIAL of a Minister of State wa^ 
the fairness of his Character, or the equity of his demands? 
Nothing but the BROAD-SEAL of his Master, he knows, 
will satisfy those to whom lie is sent, that he has a right 
to the Personage which he assumes. Doth not common 
sense tell us, that a Messenger from God must come 
recommended to Mankind in the same manner ? Neither 
his personal accomplishments, nor the excellence of his 
Doctrine, nor, in a word, anything short of the BROAD- 
SEAL of Heaven, exemplified in MIRACLES, will be suf 
ficient to establish his assumed Character. 

But the Doctors of this new School seem to have fallen 
into the absurdity here exposed, by another as ridiculous ; 
namely, that THE GOSPEL ITSELF is NO MORE, NO k 

y 2 OTHEB ; 



OF NATURE : (an extravagance, amongst the first of 
those, which, I presume, this Work of the Divine Lega 
tion hath totally discredted.) 

Now (say these men) if the light of Reason hath in- 
s tru cted us in w h at x A T u n A L li E L i G i o N T teacl le th, it 
seems. most consonant to common sense, that the KI: PUB 
LICATION of this Reiigiou should be established in the. 
same -manner that it was first PU-BLI SUED to the world, 
NOT so, (I reply) even on their false principle of a mere* 
REPUBLIC ATI ON. For 5-iiiGe it was found, by experience, 
that the first publication of, God s will, by natural light 
alone, hath .-proved insufficient to perpetuate the knowledge 
of it ; we shall think it most adequate to Reason, that 
the .REPUBLIC ATION better guarded; to se 
cure it from the like -mischance. 

.But the truth is, this idea of .ChrliUanity s being merely. 
Mich tf.,RPUBLicATiON aroscfrom the grossest ignorance 
of. the GOSPEL; which reveals more, infinitely more im 
portant Truths than NATURAL LIGHT did or could dis 
cover. .It reveals the whole scheme of human Redemption^ 
which, till this Revelation took place, was a MYSTERY, 
kept hid amongst the Arcana of the Godhead. 

However, the same Men have another objection to 
the belief of these miraculous Credentials. And the 
abjection arises, it seems, -from our SOPHISTICAL rea 
soning in support of them: for thus (they say) we 
argue - 

" So little being known of the powers of created 
spirits,, superior to ourselves, (some of which we are 
taught, to believe are - beneficent to man, and some averse) 
ail that we can conclude of MIRACLES, considered only 
in themselves,, is, that they are the work of agents, able, 
in .some instances, to control Nature, and divert her 
from her established course. But whether this control 
be performed immediately by the God of Nature, or by 
Agents acting under his direction, (which amounts to 
the same thing) or, on the. contrary, by malignant agents, 
at enmity with Man, and, for a time, permitted to indulge 
their perverse and hurtful purposes, cannot be known but 
by the nature^ af that Doctrine, in support of which, the 
pretended MLUACLKS are performed. The conclusion. 
,7 frora 


from this is, that THE MIRACLES ARE, to BE VERIFIED 

But then, (say they again) since we know so little of 
the extent of the human understanding, we cannot deter 
mine of the true Original of the Doctrine; proposed to 
our bel ief, til 1 it be s u pported by J\ 1 1 R A c L E s ; - n o w tl i :?. 
conclusion from this is, that the DOCTRINE is TO BE 


Such is the vicious Circle (say our adversaries) round 
which we run, when we first? ROVE THE MIRACLES BT 

This is, without doubt, a Paralogism. Cut we deny 
that a-ny such faulty reasoning i c > here ernployeH. The 
term DOCTRINE^ in the first proposition, is used 1": 
nify a -Dextrine agreeable to thviruth of : 
demonstrated to be so by-natural ii^it. In -the* second 
proposition, the term, DoCTiuxr, is used to signify & 
Doctrine immediately, anil in an extraordinary manner, 
revealed by God. -So that these "different significations, 
in the declared use of the word DOCTRINE,- in the two 
propositions, sets the whole reasoning free frcrn that 
vicious Circle within which our Philosophic Conjurers 
would confine it. In this, there is no fruitless return -of 
an unprogressive argument; but a regular procession of 
two distinct and different Truths, till the whole reasoning 
becomes complete. In truth, -they -afford mutual assist*- 
ance to one another; "yet not -by taking back/ rtxter the 
turn has been served, what they had given;- but by eci> 
ti nuing to hold what each had imparted to the support of 
the other. 

On the. whole, v/e conclude, that if any 1 Messengers 
ever wanted the CREDENTIALS OF Mm ACT .ES, they were 
the first- MESSENGERS OF GOD in the reveateft^Iys tery 
of the GOSPEL. 

Indeed, divine Providence so strictly appropriated 
MiiiAc L Ks for these CREDENTIALS, that JoH^ r THE 
BAPTIST, the Precursor of those Messengers; destined 
only to announce the approaching GOSPEL, worked NO 
MirtACLEs : yet, had Miracles been of no oth er use than, 
what this new-fangled Doctrine assigns to them, nanielyv 
tatnake the hearers attentive to the excellence of the 

y 3 moral* 


words of the new Religion T none had more need of them 
than JOHN and his Penitents. St. CHRYSOSTOM seems 
to have understood the GOSPEL better than these modern 
Divines, when he supposed that even JESUS himself 
worked no Miracle till after his haptism, i. e. till the 
time of his addressing himself to his Mission, when CRE* 
DENTIALS to his Character -were naturally required; 
which Credentials had he not given, the unbelieving Jews, 
as he himself acknowledges, had been free from blame. 



We come next to that second Species of Miracles, 
mentioned above, whose subject makes so essential a 
part in the Economy of the GOSPEL, that, without it, the 
whole would be vain and fruitless. The first and prin 
cipal of the species is the MIRACLE of Christ s RESUR 
RECTION from the Dead If Christ be not RAISED, 
(saith St. Paul) your faith is vain ; you are yet in your 
sins f. And St Peter uses the same argument to shew 
the NECESSITY of his Master s resurrection God says 
he) raised him up, having loosed the pains of death ; (BE* 


Now from whence does the impossibility arise, if not 
from the force of St. Paul s argument concerning the 
nature of Christ s Resurrection ? 

So important a circumstance, therefore, required that 
the highest evidence should be given of its truth. 

CHRISTIANITY reveals the restoration of lapsed and 
forfeited Man to life and immortality from the power 
and dominion of the Grave. 

But the course of human nature continuing the same 
after this restoration which it held before^ and the GRAVE 
still boasting its power, though foolishly, indeed, and in 
vain, since Death had lost its Sting ; there seemed to be 
need of some extraordinary evidence of the reality of 
tliis change in the order of things, which being procured 
at the price of Christ s death on the Cross, and then vi 
sibly paid, the nature of the compact required that the 
f JoijQ XV. 24, 1 I Cor, xv. 17, t Acts ii, 24. 1 Cor, xv. 55. 



benefit obtained should be as visibly put into our posses 
sion ; and both one and the other openly exemplified 
in the same Person, the Author of our Salvation. For, 
if he himself was not seen to enjoy the fruits of that 
Redemption, which was of his own procuring, what 
hopes could be entertained for the rest of mankind? 
Would it not have been too plausibly concluded, that 
this expedient of Redemption had proved ineffectual by 
CHRIST S not rising ? So necessarily connected (in the 
Apostle s opinion) was the MIRACLE of our Saviour s 
visible resurrection with the very essence of the Christian 
Faith. And this Resurrection being the jirst fruits of 
them that slept, was the very thing which both assured 
and sanctified all the benefits that were to follow. For 
the Jewish jirst fruits (to which the expression alludes) 
were of the nature, and a security to the plenty, of the 
approaching Harvest. 

Thus, we see, the MIRACLE of the Resurrection 
made a necessary part of the integrity of the Gospel. 

But it had other uses and expediencies besides ; 
which, (in concluding this head,) I shall, in as few 
words as possible, endeavour to point out. The heathen 
World had, in general, some notion of another life. But 
a resurrection of this material body, after death, to 
accompany the soul in its future existence, never once 
entered into their imaginations; though some modern 
Writers have been misled to think otherwise, partly by 
what they had learnt of the fables of the vulgar, full of 
shadows of a bodily shape, Inhabitants of the Tombs, 
or Attendants on the Soul, in the sequestered abode of 
Spirits ; and partly of the more solemn dreams of the 
Philosophers, particularly the famous STOICAL RENOVA 
TION, which, however, is so far from bearing any re 
semblance, or yielding any credit to the CHRISTIAN 
resurrection, though mistaken for it, that it is absolutely 
inconsistent with it. 

The Sages of Antiquity had discovered many qualities 
in the human Soul, which disposed them to think that it 
might survive the Body. But every property they knew 
of A fatter led them to conclude, that, at the separation 
and dissolution of the union between these two constituent 
parts of Man, the Body would be resolved into the 

y 4 Elements 


Elements from whence it arose. And that sect of Phi 
losophy vvhieh most favoured, and best cultivated the 
Doctrine of the Soul s immortality, considered the Body 
only as its prison, into which it was thrust, by way of 
penance, for its pre-cxistent crimes ; and from which, 
when it had undergone its destined purgation, it was to 
be totally set free. Nay, so little did the RESL^RUECTIQM 
OF THE BODY enter into their more studied conceptions,. 
Ihat when St. Paul, at Athens, (the capital Seat of 
Science,) preached JESUS AND THE RESURRECTION *, 
his Auditors mistook the second term to he like the first, 
a revelation of some new Dcky, a certain Goddess, called 

With all these prejudices, so unfavourable to the 
INSURRECTION OF THE BODT, nothing less than the 
assurance of the best attested MIRACLE, in confirmation 
of it, could have reconciled the Gentile World to the 
Mief of so incredible a Doctrine. 

This we say with the greater confidence, since St. Paul 
himself oft this occasion, appears to argue on the same 

* Acts xtii. 31. 

f In this sense St. CIIRTSC^TOM rtnderstood the thoughts of the 1 
Athenians to be concerning St. Paul s mention of the Anasfasis.- 
J)f. Hi^TLt Y thinks otherwise, liut which of these two Doctors 
was likely to be best acquainted with the genius and state of Paganism, 
when St. Paul preached at Athens-, must be left- 1<> the judgment of the 
Header. This, at least, is certain, that the reason the modern Doctor 
gives, vv iiy the Athenians could not mistake AXASTASIS /or a God<hss r 
ftfettifli they too trr// understood the notion of a resurrection, is a very 
weak one, since they had no notion of a resurrection at all; miles* 
they mistook (which is very unlikely) the STOICAL IIEA* OVATION for 
that which the Apostle preached. Dr. Bentley, indeed, seems to hare 
fallen into tht^t error, or he could scarce have said the Athenians well 
Understood the notion of a Resurrection. However, let the Athenians 
Understand this Stoical renovation as they would, they were certainly 
liable to a folly us gross-, and at that time much more general, which 
was, the turrinii moral entity into an object of worship : most of 
which abstract notions, superstition had thus metamorphosed. 
Amongst the JMVS, indeed, the RESURRECTION was become u 
national Doctrine some time br fore the advent of the MESSIAH ; 
not collected (we may be sure) from natural reason, nor taught theai- 
hy their Scriptures, yet collected from the contemplation of their 
Prophets misinterpreted ; where the restoration of the Mosaic Rcpublk 
was predicted, in terms which were mistaken by the latter Jews, to 
signify the revival or resurrection of the Bodies of their deceased 
.Ancestors ; of which many instances might be given y besides Ezekiel i 
Vision oftfa dry tones r 


idea. For when he had rectified this error of the Athe 
nians, concerning Jesus and the resurrection, and had 
informed them that, by this resurrection, he meant the 
revival of the dead bodies of men, and restoration of them 
to life, he adds whereof God hath given ASSURANCE 
unto all men, in that he raised Jesus from the dead. For 
after his resurrection, he was seen (says the same 
Apostle, on another occasion) of jive hundred brethren 
at once ; of whom the greater part remain unto this 
present. \ Cor. xv. 6. 

2. Under this second division of Miracles, whose 
subject makes an essential part in the Economy of the 
.Christian dispensation, let me recommend to your con* 
sideration and belief the power of Jesus and his Disciples 
of Men suffering by those inhospitable Guests*. HO 

And under this division I the rather chuse to place this 
species of Miracles, since, by occasion of a very general 
and infamous pretence of such a power, especially in 
these later times, the fact itself has been rendered doubtr 
ful ; and even excluded from the number of those mental 
and bodily disorders, recorded by the Evangelists, to 
have been relieved in the most extraordinary manner by 
Jesus and his Disciples And they brought unto him all 
sick people (says St. Matthew) that were taken with 
divers diseases and torments, and those -which were POS 
SESSED WITH DEVILS, AXD LUNATICS; and he healed r \. Insomuch that at length we have been told, 
that what is here called the being possessed with Devils-, 
was, indeed, no other than an atrabilaire Lunacy, or one 
of those occult distempers for which Physicians cuuld not 
find a remedy, or, what was still harder, were at a loss 
for a name ; and therefore, in complaisance to the imbe 
cility of their Patients, they agreed to suppose it super- 
natural, or (saving your presence) the work of the DeviL 

But this strange Malady being delivered to us as a 
REAL POSSESSION by the Evangelist last quoted, who, 
at the same time, distinguishes it from natural disorders, 
and particularly from LUNACY, with which these modern 
Doctors are willing to confound it, we chuse to adhere to 
the opinion of the sacred Writer. 

* Sernaoii On the Fall ofS(ftaji 7 .\ol, x, f Matt. iv. 24, 



In support of which, and to form a right judgment of 
the matter in question, it may be proper to consider what 
adverse part the DEVIL bore in disturbing the Economy 
of Grace. 

Now, in the History of the FALL, recorded by Moses, 
to which the Writers of the New Testament perpetually 
allude, SATAN, or the Tempter, Calumniator, the old 
Serpent, or the evil One, (for by these names he is cha 
racterized in Scripture,) is represented as having instigated 
ihe first man, Adam, to disobedience; for which, by the 
second Adam, Jesus Christ, (who restored us to our lost 
inheritance) is denounced his punishment in these figurative 
terms, the Seed of the Woman should bruise the Serpent s 
head* : explained in the New Testament, to be the final 
conquest and destruction of this enemy of mankind by 
our Redeemer. So that we may reasonably expect to 
find the punishment of the Tempter recorded in the 
History of our REDEMPTION, as his crime was recorded 
in the History of the FALL. And, indeed, this circum 
stance, so necessary to the story of the whole transaction, 
\ve meet with in the Gospel, on several occasions. 

When the Disciples, whom Jesus had sent out to 
renounce their Mission, came back to their Master 
exulting in the power of their Ministry, he receives them 
as Conquerors, returning in triumph from their spiritual 
warfare / beheld SATAN (says he) as lightning fall 
from heaven^. A strong and lively picture of the sudden 
precipitation of that Prince of the Air from the place 
where he had so long held his usurpation, hanging like 
a pestilential meteor over the sons of men. 

The rise, therefore, of Christ s Kingdom, and the fall 
of Satan s, being thus carried on together, it would be 
strange indeed, if, in the Gospel, we should find no 
MARKS of the rage of Satan s expiring tyranny amidst 
all the salutary blessings of the rising Empire of Christ. 
But we find them in abundance. We find this enemy 
of our salvation, mad with despair, invoking all the 
powers of darkness to blast that peace and good mil 
towards men, proclaimed by Angels on the birth-night 
of the Son of God. For when he understood, by his 
baffled attempts on his Lord and Master, that the SOULS 
* Gen. iii. 15. t Luke x. 18. 



of Men had escaped his usurped Dominion, he turned 
his cruelty on their BODIES, in the most humiliating 
circumstances of pain and oppression that could dis 
honour or disgrace humanity : permitted, no doubt, to 
take a wider range at this decisive instant than at any 
other, either before or since, in order to illuminate the 
glories of his Conqueror. 

Had the first Adam stood in the rectitude of his 
Creation, he had, on observing the Command given to 
him in Paradise, gained IMMORTALITY, and been placed 
above and beyond the reach of NATURAL and MORAL 
evil. His relapse back to MORTALITY brought both into 
the world. The office of the second Adam was to restore 
us to our Paradisaical State. But as the immortality^ 
purchased for us by the Son of God, was unlike to that 
which became forfeit by the transgression of thejirsf man 
in this particular, that it was not to commence imme 
diately, but was reserved for the reward of a future state, 
it followed that both physical and moral evil were to 
endure for a season. Yet, to manifest that they were, 
in good time, to receive their final doom from the RE 
DEEMER, it seems essential to his character that he should, 
in the course of his Ministry, give a convincing specimen 
of his power over both. 

One part, therefore, of his Godlike labours was, we 
find, employed in curing all kinds of natural diseases. 
But had he stopped here amidst his conquests over 
physical evil, the full evidence of his Dominion over both 
f^orlds, which, by his office, he was to restore to their 
primeval integrity, had remained defective. 

Jesus, therefore, was to display his Sovereignty over 
moral evil likewise ; and this could not be seen in the 
manner it was manifested over natural evil, but by a 
sensible Victory over SATAN ; through whose machi 
nations moral evil was brought into the World, and by 
whose temptations it was sustained and increased. 

Hence it was that, amongst his amazing works of sanity 
and salvation, the CASTING OUT OF DEVILS is so much 
insisted on by the Writers of his life and death ; he him 
self having informed them, that it was essential to the 
erection of his spiritual Kingdom//^ / (says he) cast 


or,--- Devils by the Spirit of God, THEN the Kingdom 
r// Gwi >> come, u-nto you*. 

oin the very genius of the GOSPEL, from the 
and constitution of the System of GRACE, it 
rirs that this Was a real ejection of the evil Spirit. 

But, besides this, Jesus and his Disciples, in their 
manner of working, and in the mode of recording what 
they worked, did every thing that might best display 
a real victory over SATAN. 

Let the Jews- of that time, let the Diseased themselves, 
be as much in an error as you arc pleased to conceive 
them, in the matter of Diabolical Possession, yet no 
Believer will presume to think that JESUS was deceived 
in his own case; or was disposed to deceive others, 
when he informed his Historians of his being led by the 
Spirit into the fflldcmc-ss, and of his being tempted there 
forty days of the DEVIL*]". Whether any, or what part 
of this transaction passed in Vision, is not material to 
determine, since the reality of the agency is the same on 
either supposition ; as its truth depended riot on the 
mode of sensation, but on the infallible assurance of that 
agency. For Jesus, in his amazing humiliation, when 
he assumed our nature, was yet, without doubt, superior 
to those infirmities of it which arise from the delusions 
of sense ; as such delusions would have been incom 
patible with the exercise of his divine Ministry. If, 
therefore, there was any mistake in tin s matter, it must 
be (I speak it with the most reverential horror) the de 
signed contrivance of our blessed Master himself, who 
assures us, that he was not only the way, but .THE TRUTH J 

So far then is clear, that the ei il Spirit was neither 
absent nor inactive when the Gospel was first opened to 

In THIS TEMPTATION, he was permitted to try 
whether he could traverse the great work of human 
Redemption- In his possession cf niais bodies, he seems 
to have been, in part, forced upon the attempt, that the 
casting of him out, by the power of Jesus, might evince 
Mankind that our restoration to LIVE was fully accom 

* Mutt, xii. 28. i Luke iv. i, -2. J John xiv. 6. 



Thus, in the case of the man possessed in the country 
of the Gadarenes The Devils, oppressed by the mighty, 
hand of God, and ready to be cast out and sent into a, 
place of torment, gonfess the superiority of their con 
queror, and proclaiiw him to be the promised MESSIAH, 
at a time when he concealed this part of his Character, 
and was not certainly known by it even amongst his 

If it be asked, why the Devils proclaimed it? The 
answer is easy: It was to impede, or to cut off, the 
pourse of his appointed Ministry, On this account 
Jesus checks, or enjoins silence to them. Indeed, had, 
all the attestation given by our Saviour to real possessions 
been ro atrpn^er tiian that which he gave in answer to. 
those who said, He cast out Devils by Beelzebub, namely, 
that then, Beelzebub s kingdom being artided within 
itself, must be brought to destruction *, the argument 
might be thought to labour a Sittie ; for if the power and 
operation of 8ata$"or Beelzebub was a groundless fancy, 
as our Philosophers pretend, Jesus may not unreason 
ably be thought to argue ad hominem ; which a Messenger. 
from God might do without impeachment of his Cha 
racter, though the concession on which he reasons were 
not strictly conformable to the reality of things. But when 
such o Messenger commands the Devils, whom he pre-. 
tends to have cast out, not to discover his office or. 
character, this is going a length, if there was. no Devil 
in thu case, which a Messenger from the God of Truth, 
could never, surely, be authorized to engage in. 

If we turn from Satan s temptation of Jesus to his cruel, 
treatment of the Jews, we shall still find the same strong, 
marks of real agency. 

JBe it granted, that both the Jews and Gentiles of .that 
time were grown, very fanciful and superstitious concern 
ing diabolic possessions, and, consequently, that they often, 
mistook natural to? supernatural maladies ; what follows, 
but that which \ve find provided against those talsq 
conclusions which weak or licentious men drew from 
thence ? 

The utmost care and attention has been given by the 
sacred Writers to mark out those cases of real possession, 

* Matt. xii. 24, & seq. 



which Jesus relieved, by some circumstance not equivocal, 
or what could not accompany an imaginary or natural 

Thus, in the adventure recorded by three of the 
Evangelists* when Jesus had eased the Demoniac, 
and his tormentors had obtained leave to go into a herd 
of swine; what other reason can be given, or, indeed, 
what better can be conceived, of their extraordinary 
request on the one hand, or permission on the other, than 
that this circumstance was to afford a certain MARK to 
distinguish a REAL from an imaginary Possession ? 

It is true, that the wild extravagance of human fancy 
may be able to form chimeras that shall affright the 
Raiser of them to distraction. Yet Brutes (we all know) 
have none of this dangerous faculty. Therefore, when 
we find great numbers of them stimulated, at once, to an 
instantaneous madness, we must needs conclude, that it 
was caused by some supernatural Agent, operating on 
their organs. 

So admirably has our indulgent Master been pleased 
to guard this important Truth against the most plausible 
evasions of self-conceited men. 

The strong impulse of a vitiated fancy, pushed forward 
by superstition, might be supposed able, without other 
agency, to produce these very extraordinary appear* 

To cut off, therefore, all escape from a forced con 
cession of the mighty hand of God, compelling his most 
averse Creatures to acknowledge his Sovereignty, here 
are two cases obtruded on the most incredulous : The 
one is, SATAN S temptation of the Messiah ; the other 
is, his Possession of brute Animals : In neither of which 
cases hath \hvpowers of imagination any place. In the 
Jirst, the divine Patient was above their delusions ; in 
the other, the Brutal was as much below them. 

If we turn from the FACTS which the Evangelists have 
recorded, to the EXPRESSIONS which they have employed, 
we shall have further reason to rest satisfied with the 
ancient interpretation. 

The text says, They brought unto him all sick people 
that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and 

* Matt. viii. Mark v. Luke viii. 




LUNATICS; and he healed them. 

Here we find, that the disorder of those who are said 
to be POSSESSED WITH DEVILS, is precisely distin 
guished, not only from natural diseases and torments in 
general, but likewise from LUNACY in particular; that 
very disorder which the Antidernoniast is so willing to 
confound with supernatural agitations. Is it possible, 
therefore, to believe, that a Writer of any meaning, at 
the very time he is distinguishing Lunacy from diabolical 
Possessions, should confound these two disorders with 
one another ? Yet, this is what these licentious Critics 
make him do, in compliance (they tell us) with an acr 
customed mode of speech. On the contrary, is it not 
certain, that the sacred Writer was the more intent to re-* 
present them as two very different disorders, for this 
very reason, their having many symptoms in common ? 
a circumstance which hath made these men solicitous 
to confound what the Evangelist was careful to dis 

In a word, they who, alter all these precautions taken 
by St. Matthew, and the rest, can believe that Devils and 
Jjetnoniacs were used only as terms of accommodation, 
may well believe (as some of them profess to do) that 
the terms Sacrifice, Redemption, and Satisfaction, come 
of no better a House than one of the common figures of 


We ROW come to the third and last Class of MIRA 
CLES, which, we say, demand the assent of every reason 
able man, when proposed to him with full evidence of the 

Of this kind are the Miracles in which the Deity im 
mediately interposes, to vindicate the Credit of his own 
Predictions, when impious men have publicly combined 
to defeat and dishonour them. 

The most eminent of this Class was the miraculous in 
terposition of Heaven, which defeated JULIAN S attempt 

When God found it expedient or necessary, in order 
to preserve the Memory and keep up the Knowledge of 
* See not* [L] at the end of this Book* 



himself amidst a corrupt world, running headlong into 
Polytheism and Idolatry, he chose a single Family, which, 
when spread out into a Nation or People, was to become 
the public repository of his holy Name, till the fulness of 
time should come, when, as he promised by himself, all 
the earth should bejilled with the glory of the Lord*. 

This family was of the seed of Abraham; which, in 
compliance with the religious notions of those times, lie 
was pleased to adopt for his peculiar People, under the 
idea of their tutelar Deity, or the God of Abraham^ 
Isaac j and Jacob ; and, the more, effectually to secure 
the great end of their separation, assumed, likewise, the 
title and office of their KING or CIVIL GOVERNOR ; 
having, first of all, communicated himself to them, as the* 
Makei* and Governor of the Universe.. 

Hence, the RELIGION he gave unto this People came 
under the idea of a LAW; and the LAW, amongst them,: 
was, in the strictest sense, RELIGION, as having all the 
sanctions of a divine command. 

From this short account of the JEWISH CONSTITU 
TION it appears, that RELIGION, which, elsewhere, had 
properly and justly particulars cnly for -its subjects, hat(; 
liere the nation or community. And what, elsewhere, 
(as far as concerns the divine origin of Religion) is only- 
a private matter, was here a public. For the Deity 
being both their tutelary Gcd and Civil Governor, the 
proper object of his care was in either capacity, the 
collective Body. 

Hence it follows, that the principal Rites of the 
Hebrew Religion and Law were to be performed in 
some determined Place. For the ideas of a tutelary God 
and civil Governor implied a local Residence ; and a 
national act, arising from the relations springing oqt of 
these qualities, required a fixed and certain habitation for 
its celebration; and both together seemed to marjk out 
the Capital of the Country for that use. 

Such a practice, which the nature and reason of things 
so evidently point out, the Institutes of the Jewish Law 
expressly direct and enjoin. 

During the early and unsettled times of the Republic, 
the Sacrifices prescribed by its Ritual were directed to be 

*: Numbers?-; I v. -21. 

. offered 


offered up at the door of an ambulatory Tabernacle ; but 
when the People had perfected the Establishment or- 
dained for them, and a magnific TEMPLE was erected 
for religious Worship, then their SACRIFICES were to be 
offered in that place at Jerusalem only. 

Now, SACRIFICES constituting the essentials of their 
Worship, their Religion could not be said to exist longet* 
than that celebration continued. But Sacrifices were to 
be performed in no place out of the Walls of their TEM 
PLE. So that when this holy place was finally destroyed, 
according to the prophetical predictions, the INSTITUTION 
itself became abolished. Nor was any thing more con 
sonant to the genius of this Religion, than the assigning 
such a celebration of its principal Rites. The Temple 
would exist while they remained a People, and continued 
Sovereign. And when their Sovereignty was lost, tha 
Temple-worship became precarious, and subject to the 
arbitrary pleasure of their Masters. They destroyed this 
Temple; but it was not till it had lost its use. For the 
Rites, directed to be there celebrated, were relative to 
them only as afree-policied People. 

So that this was, in reality, a total EXTINCTION of the 
Jewish Worship. How wonderful are the ways of God ! 
This came to pass at that very period when a new Reve 
lation from Heaven concurred with the blind transactions 
of civil policy, to supersede the LAW by the introduction 
of the GOSPEL : the last great work which completed the 

To confound this admirable order of Providence was 
what induced the EMPEROR JULIAN to attempt the 


The vanity of the attempt could be only equalled by its 
impiety; for it was designed TO GIVE THE LIE TO GOD, 
who, by the mouth of his Prophets, had foretold that it 
should never be rebuilt. Here then was the most im 
portant occasion for a miraculous interposition, as it was 
to defeat this mad attempt. And thus in fact it was de 
feated, to the admiration of all mankind. 

But as a large and full account of the whole affair hath 
been already given to the Public, in a Work entitled 
JULIAN, or a Discourse concerning th$ Earthquake and 



flcrti Eniptini -xhich ckfcatcd that Ewpcror.s Attempt 
to rebuild the Tcn^lc at Jerusalem* ; thither I refer the 
learned Ucacler, ^ho \vill there meet with all the various 
evidence of the Fact, abundantly sufficient to support and 
establish it; together with a full confutation, of all the 
cavils opposed to its certainty and necessity. 

To conclude this subject with a recapitulation of what 
I undertook to prove, namely,, that the MIRACLES in the 
Christian Dispensation, which exact credit of reasonable 
men., iuay be all comprised under one or uthcr of these 
Division, viz. 

I. Under that srr:cii:s OF MIRACLES which serves . 
for CREDENTIALS to the MISSION of Jesus Christ and 
his first Disciples and followers. 

II. Or under that wliich makes an essential part in 
the integrity or completion of the Gospel-System. 

III. Or, lastly, under that in which the Deity imme 
diately interposes, to vindicate the credit of his own 
predictions, when impious Men have entered into a 
combination to defeat and dishonour them. 

Not that it is my purpose positively to- brand, as 
FALSF., every pretended Miracle recorded in ecclesiastical 
and civil History, which vaults this favourable capacity of 
being reduced to one or other of the Specie* explained 
above. All that I contend for is, that those Miracles, 
still remaining unsupported by the nature of that Evi 
dence which I have shewn ought to force conviction from 
every reasonable Mind, should be at present excluded 
from the privilege of that conviction. 

Indeed the greater part may be safely given up, for 
idle and knavish tales of monkish invention. Of the rest, 
which yet stand undiscredited by any considerable marks 
of Imposture we may safely suspend our belief, till time 
hath afforded further lights to direct our judgment. 
" v " Nor will the confining our Assent to Miracles, thus 
brought vit iin the limits of an apparent SUFFICIENT 
CAUSE, be less beneficial to Religion in general, than it 
is subversive .of the vain Philosophy in vogue, whicfi 
attempts to discredit all extraordinary interpositions of 
Providence whatsoever, as we- shall now shew. 
* See Vol. via. of this Edit 

i. The 


i. The bringing MIRACLES within these bounds will 
afford a mark ot distinction, never to bo effaced, between 
those of the GOSPEL, and those which PA.GANISM and its 
Advocates object to us. For T may venture to affirm, 
tiiat, amongst those pretended Miracles in the Pagan 
World, there cannot be found one that carries along with 
it any thing that bears the least resemblance to a SUFFI 
CIENT CAUSE. And there is strong reason to believe, 
that the Dcitv, without such an occason, would never 
interfere amongst the Gentiles ; because such an inter 
position would, besides the vanity of it, have a natural 
und direct tendency to rivet men in their idolatry. 

But the principal use of confining MIUAGLF.S within 
these bounds will be the giving an immediate check to 
FRAUU and SUPERSTITION, when in their full career, to 
abuse and enslave a foolish World. For that strange 
infirmity of the human mind, viz. a jbndness for the 
MARVELLOUS (begot by a misconception of nature, and 
nursed by the pride of self-importance), always marie 
the deluded multitude thankless and averse to those whg 

would luring them to their senses. 

Cut sic extort a voluptas, 

And if Men be so fond of the Marvellous for the mere 
pleasure .of the ADMIRATION which it creates, what must 
be their zeal to propagate those strange tilings, in which 
Religion is supposed to be concerned ? Every disorderly 
passion now conspires to blot and deform the fair face of 
Nature, with Prodigies and Portents. 

Such f rightful Visions, even the earliest A s:es of Chris- 

V J * V J 

tianity raised u p. The Prodigies of A x T i c a RJ ST (says 
the Apostle) have been crjler tlie working of Satan, with 
Po w E RS and S i G x s and V L v r x G Wo x D E RS *. 

This, it is true, should make THEOLOGIAXS cautious ; 
but it shoujd not make our PHILOSOPHERS presumptuous 
or vain. For even these Intimadps of Nature know 119 
more of Her than what lies just before them, in common 
with those whom they most affect to despise: And all 
they kno\v, if not a MIRACLE, is yet a MYSTERY. 

Let these her Closet-acquaintance steal, as they are 
able, to her inmost recesses, they can bring nothing from 

* 2 Thess. ii. 9. 

z 2 thence 


th nee concerning God s natural and moral Government, 
as. the Poet finely expresses it, 


which only teach us the need we have of a better De 
cipherer, than that REASON on which these men so* 
proudly rely. 


BUT now,, besides these extraordinary Gifts, pro 
perly called MIRACLES, with which the first Preachers 
of the Gospel were intrusted, for its more speedy pro 
pagation, they were endowed with another, and more 
complicated kind of supernatural Power, namely, PRO 
PHECY, in which a MIRACULOUS power was eminently 

With PROPHECY, or with that simpler species ci 
divine Virtue, MIRACLES, was the Church of Christ at 
that time supplied; as one or the other was best suited 
to the various uses of Religion. 

In explaining this matter, which the importance of the 
subject requires us to do more at large, it win be neces 
sary just to repeat what has been observed before; that- 
in the first propagation* of a new Religion from Heaven,. 
the Will of God must be attested by MIRACLES; since 
nothing less than this instant Evidence is sufficient to 
assure us of its divine original. 

But when this hath been fully and largely afforded, the 
po:cer of Miracles (where Miracles do not make a con 
stant and essential part in the nature of the Dispensation, 
as they did in the Jewish} is with good, reason withdrawn 
from the Servants and Ministers of Religion : And the 
CKURCII is from thenceforth left, at least for some time, 
to support itself on the TRADITIONAL EXEMPLIFICA 
TION of this evidence; something less forcible than the 
ORIGINAL RECORD, of which the first and better ages 
Of Christianity had been in possession.. 

But by the time this MIRACULOUS power began to fail, 
another Was preparing to supply its place, of still greater 
efficacy ; I mean, that of PROPHECY. 

For the sovereign Master, who no less manifests his 
constant PRESENCE to the moral than to the physical 



government of the World, has been graciously pleased to 
give to the later ages of the Church more than an equi 
valent for what tie had bestowed upon the earlier^ in be 
ginning to shower down on his chosen servants of the 
NEW COVENANT the riches of PROPHECY as the power 
of working MIRACLES abated. So early, 1 say, was 
this preparation made for that stronger and more last 
ing support; a support not yet, indeed, improved into 
Incidence ; nor was the Evidence wanted, while Afiractes^ 
in a sort, remained. Besides, it could not, in the nature 
of things, become Evidence, till some time after its first 
enunciation : for till the more considerable events of a: 
PROPHECY, which contained the future and later fortunes 
of the Gospel, had arisen, and been brought, by degrees, 
into EXISTENCE, the Prophecy could atfbrd no convic 
tion of its truth. 

Yet, in this wonderful disposition of things, we see 
the divine Hand by which they were conducted. 

To proceed. PROPHECIES were now more clearly 
and simply, now more obscurely and enigmatically 
enounced, just as the nature of the subject or the cir~. 
cumstances of the time required Yet still we have ven 
tured to call PROPHECY a stronger and more lasting 
Evidence than MIRACLES. .And this will deserve our 
attention. The evidence from MIRACLES seems, by its 
nature, to lessen somewhat by time ; while that irom PRO- 
PHECY gathers strength by it. and grows more and more 
convictive, till the gradual and full completion of all its 
parts makes the splendour of it irresistible. 

Hence the wisdom of the divine Disposer is still further, 
seen, in making PROPHECY, not only the strongest, but 
the LAST and CONCLUDING Evidence of a Religion,. 
w hich, as it was the completion of the whole scheme of 
HEVELATION, so having (as it would seem) the largest 
portion of its course yet to run, that species of Evidence 
which does not lose, but gain strength, by time, was best 
fitted to accompany it to its utmost period. 

But to go on with our more general reflections on the 

This DOUBLE EVIDENCE, in support of Revealed 
Religion, hath always been the same throughout every 

z 3 mode 


mode of God s moral Dispensations. The records of 
sacred History confirm this Truth. 

Under the Jewish economy, although MIRACLES, by 
reason of the peculiar form of the Republic, were neces 
sarily attendant on its administration, throughout a course 
of many ages (that is, during all tiie time in which the 
affairs of this people were conducted by an extraordinary 
Providence), yet God s inspired Servants were, together 
with the power of working MIRACLES, endowed with the 
gift of PKOIMIECY. For, although the extraordinary 
Providence, and consequently MIRACLES, which made a 
part of it, continued much longer than would have been 
Necessary, had MIRACLES, amongst the Jews been of no 
other use than they were in the Christian Church, viz. to 
evidence the divinity of the Revelation; yet as that Pro- 
vidence, and consequently this miraculous attendant on 
it, were to cease long before the abolition of the THEO 
CRACY; the other evidence of PROPUECY, in the absence 
of MIRACLES, was graciously bestowed on the Jewish 
Church likewise. 

Hence the inspired Ministers of it, DANIEL in par 
ticular, foretold more circumstantially and minutely than 
the rest, the various fortunes of that Church and Repub 
lic, from its decay, in their own times, to the entire clisso^- 
lution of it by the introduction or* a better SYSTEM. 

In the like manner St. Jonx, under the NEW COVE 
NANT, did, by the same divine Spirit, predict the fortunes 
of the Christian Church, from the flourishing condition 
of it, in his own time, through all the disasters of the 
corrupt ages that followed, to the happy consummation 
of all tilings. . 

In both cases, for the reasons above given, PROPHECY 
could not be urged as instant evidence, at the tirr^eitvvas 
delivered, but was kept entire and reserved for the use of 
those ages when MIRACLES having long ceased in the 
Christian Church, and were declining in the Jeicish^ 
seemed to need this other and further support. 

From all these, and from many other considerations to 
fc-3 further urged, it will appear, that, of this double Evi 
dence to the truth of Revelation, viz. MIRACLES and 
PROPHECY, the latter, as we have said, is of superior 
c and Citicacv. 



We have already shewn its superiority in gaining by 
Time what the other loses. This advantage is further 
seen by its beinu less subject to the mistakes and fallacious 
impressions r Qi sense than Miracles are. 

But as this is a matter of much importance, it may be 
prqper to explain and verily the assertion, 

Both MIRACLES and PROPHECIES are indeed appeals 
.to the Senses, but with this difference, that MIRACLES, 
.however illustrious, such as those worked by the first 
^propagators of aur holy Religion, are subject to tluc cavils 
of Infidelity. 

Of this, Dr. Middleton hath afforded a wonderful ex 
ample; where .he insinuates,, and would seem to persuade 
us, that the Vuice J rom Heave u recognizing the Son of 
Gcd, was no other than a superstitious fancy of the later 
, Jews called the BATJI KOL.; a fantastic kind of Divina 
tion of their own invention. As groundless and scanda 
lous as this cavil is, yet it must be owned, that the frame 
.of the animal economy, in which a heated imagination is 
.able to work strange appearances in the body, has given 
some countenance to infidelity, in its sceptical conclusions 
.against Miracles. And though we have sajd enough to 
free of the Gospel, and some others, confined within 
the reasonable bounds before laid do\\n, from every im 
putation of this sort, yot Miracles, by their very 
nature, open and liable to abusive interpretations, and 
Prophecjf wdl secured from then;), for this, and Jur the 
more weighty reasons given above, we conclude (as ihe 
crown of all) with the unerring declaration of the holy 
Apostle PETER; who, in his second general Epistle to 
.the Churches, alluding to this fa f;jbld cridejwc for the 
truth of Revelation, namely MIRACLES and PROPHECY^ 
.after he had ended what he thought fit to ?ay of the 
Jirxt t proceeds to the other in these woa*iL> WE HAVE 

ALSO A 31 ORE Si RE WORD OF PilOiyiECY %c;*> BE- 

3AIOTEPON TOV nPO^HTJKON hfywa zcord, that nwij be 
.more Jinnly relied on, andichoxe e.vtdejiceis more durable. 
The word, jS^iJT^, including both these senses. And 
we have shewn that the nature of PROPHECY contains 
these two qualities;. 

And they being most .eminently comprised in the 
CAPITAL PROTHLCY here described and characterized ; 

24 a more 


a more particular explanation of it may be naturally 
expected in this GENERAL VIEW of the Christian 

" We have not followed a^//;^: ; / dev/tca Cables 
" (says the Apostle, ver, i (I) when we made known unto 
" you the POWER AND COMING of our Lord Jesus. 
" Clirist, but were eye-witnesses of his Majesty." 

17. " For he received from God the Father honour 
" and glory, when there was a VOICE to him from the 
" exceeding glory This is my beloved Son, in whom I 
" am well pleased." 

1 8. " And this voice which came from Heaven we 
" heard, when we were with him in the mount." 


" PROPHECY ; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, 
" as unto a light shining in a dark place, until tht day 
" drfwn, and the day-star arise in your hearts" 

* There are few places, in the Scriptures of the New 
Testament, plainer than this before us ; and yet there are 
none where interpreters have wandered further from the 
ApostL s meaning f. 

This hath been principally owing to a mistake of the 
subject. These Interpreters supposed that St. PETER 
was here speaking of the PERSONAL CHARACTER OF 
JESUS; and thence concluded, that THE MORE SURE 
fvoRD OF PROPHECY, whereby he strengthens his argu 
ment, respected the Prophecies of the OLD TESTAMENT, 
which establish that PEIISONAL CHARACTER. 

But the Apostle is treating of a different thing; namely, 


Which shews, that the more sure word of Prophecy 
regards a Prophecy of the NEW TESTAMENT. 

One mistake produced, of course, another. For, on 
supposition, that the personal Character of Jesus was 
the thing meant, it would follow, that by the power and 
coming oj our Lord, we are to understand his FIRST 
COMING ; and then, indeed, the word of Prophecy must 
needs signify a Prophecy ALREADY FULFILLED. But 

* From this place to the end, abridged and altered from Discourse 
Gn the Rise of Antichrist. 

f See the altercations between Bibhop Sherlock and Dr. Middleton, 
and their respective Advocates, 

5 nothing 


nothing is more certain than that the Character here 
given of that Prophecy, to which the Church is admo 
nished to take heed, or pay its attention, confines us to 
one, but now, just beginning to attest its divine original 
it is a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawn, 
and the day-star arise in mtr heart*; that is, till a long 
series of events (yet in the womb of time) shall arise, to 
give testimony, by degrees, till the whole evidence con 
cludes in one unclouded blaze of conviction. So that the 
power and coining of our Lord must needs mean his 


Yet amongst the Interpreters just before censured, 
there are some more eminently absurd * than the rest. 
One of these is even desirous to have it believed, that 
by this more sure word of Prophecy is to be understood 
the Prophecy of ISAIAH, chap. xlii. ver. i. although the 
Apostle has characterized this to be a light sinning in a 
dark place, c. /. e. not as convictive evidence at present, 
yet being a LIGHT, though shining \n a dark place, it de 
served our attention, till greater lights should arise, which 
would afford full conviction. 

Now, could this be the Character of a Prophecy of 
the Old Testament-, especially one of ISAIAH S, most of 
whose Predictions referred to, and had their completion 
in, JESUS, their great object ? The dawn and day-star, 
here spoken of by the Apostle, as of a very distant light, 
was, in the time of that Prophet, already risen in the 
hearts of his countrymen, or it would never rise. 

Let us, therefore, look out for some more reasonable 
Paraphrase of the sacred Text. 

" That you may be assured (says the Apostle) we 
" have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we 
" described to you the power of our Lord at his SECOND 
" COMING, you should recollect what we have frequently 
" told you, of his FIRST; having been eye-witnesses of 
" the Majesty and Miracles attending it, when there 
" came a voice to him from the exceeding glory 9 c. 
" Now, the MIRACLES, which accompanied, and con- 
" firmed his mission, on his FIRST COMING, are surely 
* k sufficient to gain credit to what we have, as often, told 
" you, of his SECOND. And, of this capital Truth, God 
* See Mr. M. 

" hath 


41 hath been graciously pleased to add still stronger 
6 evidence; by giving us A MORE SURE WORD OP 

* PilOPil ECY." 

But the general subject of the EPISTLE will further 
support the truth of this Paraphrase. 

It is a farewell address to the CHURCHES, on his 
having received intimation, from the holy Spirit, of his 
approaching Martyrdom. 

The Apostle begins with repeating to them [from 
ver. 3d to the i.5thj that elegant summary of Christian 
Religion*, as was his wont, on all occasions, to inculcate. 
But, at this juncture, CONSOLATION being what the 
afflicted Church most needed, he takes his topic from the 
Il>; WARDS, now supposed to be approaching, at the 
second cowing of our Lord in the consummation of all 
things. PERSECUTION had soothed the Sufferers into 
this flattering error, which was now become general, and 
not likely to be soon redressed, while they continued 
unable (as they yet were) to distinguish the two parts of 
which this PK EDICT ION, concerning the second coming 
of our Lord, was composed. Each part had its distinct 
completion, commencing at different periods. The first , 
when our Lord came to judgment, on the JEWISH 
PEOPLE, in putting a complete period to their ECONOMY, 
by the destruction of their TEMPLE ; The other, when 
lie was to pass judgment on the whole race of mankind, 
and make a, final end of the MUNDANE SYSTEMS 

Or rather, to speak with more exactness, this prediction 
of -the SECOND COMING was delivered in two Prophecies 
joined together ; and, in intimation of the Jewish mode, 
j nixed and interwoven with one another; generally as 
littb understood, at the time pf the delivery, as all those 
of a like import were,, which hacj either a sppondary scnw, 
or included a double subject. But for a larger account of 
these, and particularly of the sort now in question, I beg 
leave to refer the Header to the sixth Section of the sixth 
Book of this \Vork. 

Such was the Erroi\ which (as we say) gave birth to 

the consolatory Epistle here explained, But as all 

ERRORS, together with the accidental good, which, by 

the directing hand of Providence, they are inade to 

* S^e the Discourse on this text, Vol. x. of this Edit. 



produce,, are easily attended \\ith much evil; so it was 

At first, the Error produced sobriety, vigilance, and 
perseverance in the FAITH. But alter wards, it had a 
contrary effect. There shall come in the last days (:-ay<i 
this Apostle) scoffers, walking after their own /w,v/-.v, and. 


since the Fathers fell asleep^ all things continue as they 
were from the beginning of the creation*. 

After the censure of this Impiety, the Apostle proceeds 
to upbraid their ignorance of the natural constitution of 
the Earth ; which is physically ordained to bring on its 
own destruction, by FI-IE, in some future period, as here 
tofore, by the destruction of WATER : and that the delay 
of this dreadful Catastrophe, which affords these scoffs 
of Impiety, is not owing to the Lord s slackness in the 
performance of his promise ; but to his long-suffering \ 
that all might come to repentance \. lie then describes 
this final dissolution of all things, by fire$. Out of 
which (he tells them) shall arise (according to the pro 
mise of PROPHECY) a new heaven ami a new earth t 
wherein shall dwell righteousness^* And with this the 

F A U EWE L L E P i S T L E CO11 cl U d CS 

Such being the subject of it, who can doubt but that 
a true account of the reasoning in the latter part of the 
jirst chapter is here given ? and, consequently, that the 
Apostle s purpose is not to speak of indefinite Prophecies 
already fulfilled IN, OR UNDER, the OLD TESTAMENT, 
but of some precise Prophecy to be Ji //tiled under the 
NEW; in order as the several parts of it (extending 
through a course of many Ages) should come into 

To THIS the Church of Christ is bid TO TAKE HEED, 
as to a more sure word of prephecy. Jkit had the 
description ended here, it would have been much too 
yague to enjoin our attention in so earnest and particular 
a maniier. The Apostle, therefore, goes on to give it 
this characteristic Mark that it was A LIGHT SHIXIXG 
IN A DARK PLACE. A Prophecy, of which the princi 
pal parts were, at that time, surrounded and partly 
involved in obscurity and darkness ; but yet, emitting so 

* Ch. ill. 3. & seq. f Ver. 9. J Ver. 10,11, 1-2. Ver. 13. 



rnany scattered Rays, as to make a careful observer 
inclined to think some great scene was just beginning to 
open, \vhich would amply reward our attention to this 
light tihhihig hi a dark place, by the change of its con 
dition, first into a daicn ; and then, into still clearer day- 

The Apostle having thus prepared our way to this 
SURER WORD, or superior excellence of PROPHECY, pro 
ceeds to acquaint us with the very IDENTICAL PROPHECY 
lie had in his eye ; which will now appear to be no other 
than the predictions of St. Paul and St. John concerning 
ANTICHRIST, or the future fortunes of the Church, 
unrler the usurpation of the MAN OF SIN ; a prediction 
de -r< l i^y called, by way of eminence, THE WORD OF 
PIIOPHKCY. For this Man of Sin began to icork before 
the writing of this farewell Epistle. So St Paul assures 


ALREADY wo UK*. St. Peter, therefore, towards the 
conclusion of his Epistle, recurring again, as his subject 
required, to God s long-suffering, in the delay of his set < nd 
coming to judge the world, adds, even as our bclored 
PAUL also, according to the WISDOM given unto him, 
hath written unto you : as also in all his Epistles, 


that are unlearned and unstable zvrest, as they do also 
the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction f. Now 
what are these OBSCURE PARTS in St. Paul s Epistles, 
here characterized, but the Prophecies in St. John s, 
Book of the REVELATIONS concerning ANTICHRIST J, 
abridged by St. Paul in his Epistles, and referred to by 

St. Peter 

* 2 Thess. ii. 7. f Chap. iii. 15, 16. 

J See Sir Ibaac Nev/toirs Observations upon the Apocalypse o( 
St. John, chap. i. 

See tf i: remainder of this argument in Discourse On the 
if Antichrist, Vol. x. pp. 165, &c. of this Edit. 



N O T E S 



P. 241. [A]. 

ON this point it will be sufficient to refer the reader 
to those two excellent Writers, Dr. Samuel Clarke 
and Mr.W. Baxter, for a full Demonstration of the 
immateriality of that Substance, in. which the taculties of 
sense and reflection reside. [See Clarke s Tracts against 
Dodwell and Collins, and Baxter on -the Nature of the 
Soul.] These Writers have gone much further than 
Locke and others on the same Subject ; who contented 
themselves with shewing the possibility, nay, great pro- 
liability, that the thinking substance in us is immateriaL 
[See Locke s Second Reply to the Bishop of Worcester^ 
p, (>oo. of his Works.] But Clarke and Baxter have 
clearly proved, from the discovered qualities of a thinking 
Being, that the Soul cannot possibly be material, what 
ever undiscovered qualities it may be possessed of. And 
this conclusion was made (in my opinion) neither rashly 
nor at random. For, to unsettle our assurance in the 
truth of their Opinion, their Adversaries must shew that 
such undiscovered qualities are contrary to the qualities 
discovered ; yet contrary qualities can never subsist 
together in the same substance, without one destroying 
the other. Hence, we understand the futility of Mr. 
Locke s super induct ion of the faculty of thinking to. a 
system of Matter. , conceived, by that excellent Writer, 
in the modest fear of circumscribing Omnipotence ; but 
Omnipotence is not circumscribed by denying its power 
of making qualities, destructive of one another, to reside 
in the same substance (for a power which produces 
nothing is no exercise of power) ; but by denying his 
power to change, together with consistent qualities, the 
nature of the. substance in which those qualities reside, 
Tliis power (supposing Mr. Locke contended for 


more) will be readily granted; but his argument will 
gain nothing by it. On the contrary, by changing via fert 
ility into immat&iality, it ends th^ dispute with the 
Bishop; but to Mr. Locke s disadvantage, by proving, 
that the Soul, or thinking Substance in us, is immaterial, 

P. 2.51. [B.] The impious notion of the human Soul s 
being part or portion of the Divine Substance, made the 
Thdstical Philosophers give no credit to the Doctrine 
of a future state of rewards and punishments, [."tee the 
Divine Legation, book iii. 4.] To avoid this impiety, 
certain Christian Enthusiasts taught that eternity was the 
condition of the Soul by nature as well as by gmcc, 
And so, before they were aware, fell into the very error 
of the Philosophers, which they were so anxious to avoid. 
For eternity being confessed by all to be one of the 
attributes of the Deity, it followed, that the human soul 
was indeed part or portion of the Divine Substance. 
This execrable frenzy, of which Religion could never 
get entirely free, (known by the name of SPJXQZISM) 
hath of late appeared under its ugliest form in the 
Writings of Mr, W. Law, collected from the exploded 
ravings of Jacob Behmcn. [See a book, intitled, An. 
Appeal to all who doubt or disbelieve the Truths of the 
Gospel.] But when learned men wake out of one 
delirium, it is not to recover their senses, but to fall back 
again into another ; and that, generally, is its opposite, 
So it was here. The Philosophic Converts to the Christian 
Faith, in the first ages of the Church, were no sooner 
convinced of the folly of fancying that the human Soul 
was a part cf the Gcdhead, than, in their haste to be at 
distance from that monstrous opinion, they ran suddenly 
into a contrary folly, and maintained, that the Soul had 
not one spark of the Divinity in her whphe composition ; 
but was MATERIAL as well as mortal: now degrading 
man to a brute, whom before they had exalted to a 
God. Nor hath this extravagance been destitute of (for 
what extravagance hath ever wanted) the patronage of 
niotlern Divines. We have seen it lately employed in 
support of afresh whimsy, viz. THE SLTKP or THE SOUL. 
One thing however seems to be defective in the Scheme; 
which is, the not rectifying the old error of a UESUUUKC? 


Tiox. For, I apprehend, that when a MATERIAL Soul 
is once gone to Sleep, nothing but a KE-CUEATIOX can 
awake it. 

P. 2;"; 8. [C.] Other death had been understood, viz. 
Eternal life in misery. But, to sec what ill use hath 
been made of this portentous comment, we need only 
attend to Collins in his discourse of free-thinking. " We 
<l learn in the Old Testament, (says he) that Adam by 
" eating the forbidden fruit subjected himself and all his 
" Posterity to death. But the New Testament TEA CUES 
" us TO UNDERSTAND, by death, eternal life in misery ; 
" and from thence, we know that GOD HAD BUT ONE 
" WAY to put mankind in a capacity of enjoying immortal 
" happiness. 7 p. 153. Having given, in this buffoon 
manner, so absurd and monstrous a picture of REDEMP 
TION*, (to the composition of which the School Divines 
had greatly contributed) he, and his free-thinking col- 
leagues, hoped that their Doctrine of Christianity* s being 
onJij a republication of the Religion of Nature would go 
down the easier. And they well enough understood how 
to manage that unscripturat error to their advantage ; as 
may be seen by Tindafs book, intitled, Christianity as 
old as the Creation; which combats the Christian Reve 
lation, under cover of the absurd concessions of certain 
latitudinarian Divines of a later date. These conces 
sions, Tindal miscalls the PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTI 
ANITY. Hence this formidable book became one con 
tinued thread of contemptible sophistry from beginning; 
to end. Yet I remember the time when the false terror 
of it alarmed the whole body of the ClergVj for the 
danger of the Church, who were but just recovered from 
the Sachevcrel- crisis. 

P. 259. [D.] The HEMOXSTRAXTS, fearing that this 
interpretation of the text might give countenance to the 
School doctrine of ORIGINAL six, deny that Infants are 
here meant, by those u ho had not sinned, &e. But the 
fear is vain. It was death, and not damnation, which 
reigned from Adam to Moses. The expression Kal lv\ 
rifV py dpagTvc-afl&s, &c. implies it was a part only of 
the human species which v&$ free from simting after the 



similitude of Adcmis transgression ; or the being without 
mi And what part could this be but the infantine? 

P. 269. [E.] It is true, that notwithstanding the con 
formity of this language in the Revelations to that of 
Peter and to the Gospel of John, some Critics, and 
particularly Grotius, would have the text in the Apoca 
lypse, which says, all that die ell upon the Earth shall 
worship him whose names are not written in the Boole 
vf Life, of the Lamb slain from the foundation oj the 
world to be thus understood The Book of Life written 
from the foundation of the World and not as here 
translated Christ slain from thcjoundationofthe World* 
However, both the one and the other sense infers the 
same truth ; for if the Book of Life [of the Lamb slain] 
was writ ten from the foundation of the war Id, it is plain, 
that the Lamb slain, or the sacrifice of his death, ICY/A* 
preordained from the foundation of the World. 

P. 272. |T.] The reason why Jesus, at the first publi 
cation of the Gospel, refers so little to the FALL, which 
concerned all mankind, and so much to his MESSI AHSIIIP, 
uhich directly concerned only the Jews, is apparent ; his 
Mission was first directed to the house of Israel. He 
left his Apostles to carry on their Ministry of the Gospel, 
to the Gentiles. Hence St. Paul, who was more emi 
nently the Apostle of the Gentiles, is so explicit in his 
account of the RESTORATION FROM THE FALL. This 
furnished a handle to Lord Bolingbroke, to affirm, with 
equal ignorance and malice, that Paul preac/iedaxw 
GOSPEL, different from that of Jesus. 

P. 286. [G,] A learned and serious Writer*, in a 
late book, intitled, Observations and Enquiries relating 
to the various parts of ancient History!, hath a chapter 
concerning HUMAN SACRIFICES; which he thus intro* 
duccs One would think it scarce possible that so unna 
tural a custom as thai of HUM AN SACRIFICES should 
farce existed, in the world But it is certain, that it did 
r.ot only t\i ist, hut almost universally prevail, p, 267. 
Our account of the origin of this unnatural custom will 

* Mr. Bryant. f Printed in quarto, 1767. 



much abate the wonder. However, the learned Writer 
solves the difficulty with much ease ; by deriving it from 
the Command to Abraham, And here, before I enter 
on the matter, permit me to repeat, what I have before 
observed, that it indicates an odd turn of mind (however 
general it may be), which disposes the Learned to seek 
for the origin of the superstitious rites of antiquity, rather 
in the casual adventures of particular men, than in the 
uniform workings of our common nature*. 

But the learned Writer fancies his solution is much 
strengthened by the general notion of Antiquity, that the 
AN0P,ano0r2IA was a Mystical Sacrifice. Let us 
examine his reasoning on this head. Mr. Bryant having 
given us, from the fragment of Sanchoniatho, what relates 
to I L or KllONUS s sacrifice of his only Son (by which, 
indeed, it appears, that human Sacrifice was not a con^ 
ceit of yesterday; the Author of that fragment plainly 
deriving his story from this part of the Abrahamic 
History), goes on in these words, " They [human sacrifices] 
" were instituted probably in consequence of a prophetic 
" Tradition, which I imagine had been preserved in the 
" family of Esau; and transmitted, through his pos- 
" terity, to the people of Canaan." p. 291. 

To this, let me, first of all, observe, that the supposition 
of a/;; *oph elic tradition rests entirely on the truth of my 
peculiar idea of the nature of the command to Abrahan^ 
viz. That it was a mere scenical representation, given 
at the patriarch s earnest request. For on this idea only 
could the command be considered as a prophecy. But 
this is doing too much honour to my hypothesis, still 
held, I suppose, by the more orthodox, to be a paradox; 
and, what is still worse, it greatly weakens the learned 
Writer s reasoning ; for a scenical representation, which 
must naturally end as this die!, in a prohibition of the 
commanded sacrifice, could hardly induce any one, who 
went upyii the grounds, or in consequence of a prophetic 
Tradition, to think that human Sacrifices were acceptable 
to the Deity. But the truth is, this prophetic Tradition. 
}n the family of Abraham, is merely gratis dictum. We 
find not the least footsteps of it in the more circumstantial 
History of the other branch of Abraham s Family, the 
* See the Divine Legation, 

VOJL. VL A A Patriarchal ; 


Patriarchal ; which was most concerned to preserve it, 
had there heen any such. Besides, how this commanded 
Sacrifice, which was forbidden to be perpetrated, should 
encourage human sacrifices, before men had steeled 
themselves, by long use, in the practice of so unnatural 
a crime, is hard to conceive. It is true, that this argu 
ment will lose somctt hat of its force, when we suppose 
the command was given to a family which were no strangers 
to human Sacrifices. This is observed purely in reverence 
to truth; but, be this as it will, it subverts the fancy of 
the Abrahamic original. For the fact seems to be, that, 
at the time this Command was given to the Patriarch, 
the Gentile world was deeply plunged into this diabolic 
Barathrum : which, though the descendants of Esau 
possibly had not escaped, yet the line of Isaac cer 
tainly had. 

The Mosaic account of the State of Religion in the 
Abrahamic times, shews that it was extremely depraved. 
For though the iniquity of the Amorltes icas not yet J nil* ^ 
yet that of their neighbours, in Sodorn and Gomorrah, 
we know, was. These considerations reasonably induced 
Philo the Jcic, in his Discourse concerning Abraham, 
to suppose that human Sacrifices were in use before the 
time of Abraham. And Marsham, one of the best 
modern Critics concerning ancient times, declares, with 
out hesitation, in favour of this humiliating circumstance ; 
and our admirable Spencer thinks, there is so little reason 
to ascribe the original of Infanticide to the command to 
Abraham i that, unless the iJistory of that command be 
told very lamely and imperfectly, it atibrds very strong 
arguments against that inhuman practice. But it is not 
generally the way of Scripture to reprobate a bad practice 
before it has been conceived or committed f. Hence we 
may fairly collect, that human Sacrifice* were in use 
before the command to Abraham* But \\hat need we 

* Gen. xv. 16. 

f Probe novi quamplurimos alui onania de ritus liujus nefarii fonte 
^entire, quasi ex Abraham! hiium suuni ofierentis, bistoria corrupta 
et depravata protiuxissent. Huic autem sen ten tire fidera udhibere 
nescio, cum historia ilia nisi plane mutilata, inagna prabeat contn* 
inorem ilium inbumanum argumenta; et verisimile sit miiHas Gentes 
liberossuos immolare solitas, de Abraham! exemplo, ne vel ikndo quic- 
quara audivisse. De Leg, Hebraeo, rkualibus, L. 11. C. i^. Sect. 3. 


more to prove the fact in question, than this, That, if the 
account, here given, of the origin and progress of Sacrifice 
be the true, (as it hath the fairest claim of being so re 
ceived, since the first use, and all the gradual abuses, 
of it, till it sunk into the horrid Rite in question, may be 
understood, and understood only on this simple Principle, 
the uniform workings of our common nature) human 
Sacrifices must needs have preceded that a3ra. 

What follows, in the learned Writer, as a strong con 
firmation of his system, is this, that CHILD-SACRIFICE 
was a type or representation of SOMETHING TO COME. 
Now, if by Child-sacrifice he means the command to 
Abraham, this we allow and even contend for. But, if 
he means that the specific rite of Child-sacrifice was 
understood by Sacrificers, either Jewish or Gentile, to be 
a type or representation of .SOMETHING TO COME, I think 
he speaks without the least proof. What he adds, one 
knows hot what to make of Child -sacrifice (says he) 
is the only instance of ami Sacrifice in the Gentile world 
which is said to be MYSTICAL. For, if by mystical he 
means, a type of something to come, this has been 
answered already. But if by -mystical we are to under 
stand, what was so called by the Gentiles in their 
Sacrificial Rites, almost all of them were mystical; that 
is, had a meaning subjoined, not obvious, nor intended to 
i>e obvious to the uninitiated, or the Profane. All their 
secret Rites, in which Sacrifice bore a principal part, 
abounded so much in hidden meanings of this sort, that 
these Rites were called MYSTERIES by way of eminence. 

But if, alter all, this TEKNC0TIIA w Child- sacrifice 
/had the plain meaning which I have given to it, and not 
the mystical of the learned Writer, what becomes of his 
whole hypothesis ? That it had no other meaning, than 
the plain one, I appeal to the Authority of an inspired 
Writer. MICAK, without doubt, understood the true 
Origin, and consequently, the right import of Child- 
sacrifice; and he delivers my sense of it, in these 
words /Till the Lord be phased with thousands of 
Rams, or with ten thousands of Hirers of Oil ? SHALL 



* Oh. vi. ver. 7, 

A A 2 Here, 


Here, we see, conformably to what I have delivered con 
cerning Child-sacrijice, that the idea the Gentiles had of 
it, (for, to the Gentile, not to the Jewish sacrifices, the 
Prophet here alludes, as will be shewn hereafter) was 
simply, and solely, this-, the very highest atonement that 
man could make for his transgressions, as it was the 
offering up what was most dear to the offender. The 
Prophet, therefore, puts it in the number of expiatory 
Sacrifices. But had that, which the learned Writer con 
tends for, been the true and ancient notion of the Tcj/o(W*, 
one can hardly think that, at a time when the Prophets 
were gradually opening the nature of the NEW DISPEN 
SATION, 3 Iiath would have let slip so fair an occasion 
of considering it under that Christian idea. 

We may now see, tor what reason Child-sacrifice 
came to be reckoned a MYSTERIOUS WORSHIP; it was 
done, to withdraw the observation of the People from so 
horrid a rite, when considered only in its simple use ; 
for nature is rarely so far debauched, as to behold, with 
indifference, the violation of its most instinctive appetites. 
So that the enormity was to be covered by some far 
fetched invention of superior excellence of virtue, which 
preferred the rights of the Divinity to all human obliga 
tions. Thus, when the Worshippers were apt to revolt 
at Sacrifices extremely cruel or libidinous, the Priests 
secured their own credit, and the honour of their Got!, 
by the intervention of a spiritual meaning. And hitman 
Sacrifices became mysterious for the same reason that 
the impudent procession of the Phallus, in the corrupted 
Rites of Bacchus and Osiris, was taught to convey the 
high matters of REGENERATION, and a new life. 

I have been the longer on this question, because, if 
human Sacrifices should be thought to have had their 
original from the Command to Abraham, it might seem 
to give some colour (which was far from the intention 
of this very learned and worthy man) to tjie calumny of 
the Deists, who assert, that HUMAN SACRIFICES MADE 

A PART OF THE MOSAIC RlTUAL. For if the TCXf00y<n* 

prefigured the Sacrifice on the Cross, or, as the learned 
Writer expresseth it, was a type or representation of 
something to come, it softens a little this infidel Paradox. 
The Poet VOLTAIRE hath repeated the calumny over 



and over, as if the Bible was still shut up, not only from 
the people in general, but (what perhaps would have been 
attended with less injury to Religion) from THESE 
POETS in partieular. 

And now, this more serious question (in the midst of 
one less important, viz. the origin and progress of sacri 
fice in general) will deserve a severe examination. 

VOLTAIRE, in a thing he calls, " An Essay on. general 
" History," accuses the LAW, in these Words" The 
" Jewish Law seems to permit these [human] Sacrifices. 
" It is said in Leviticus, that none devoted which shall 
" be devoted of men shall be redeemed, but shall surely 
" be put to death*" The Jewish Books bear evidence, 
that when the Israelites overran the little country of 
Canaan, they massacred in most of the villages, men, 
women, and children, because they had been DEVO 
TED. On this Law it was that " Jephtha sacrificed his 
" daughter|." 

1. This whole calumny I shall clear away first of all, 
by the most express prohibitions of the LAW, together 
with the declarations of the PROPHETS; both of which 
execrate every species of human Sacrifice. 

2. And then examine and explain all tiiose passages of 
Scripture, which seem to have given a handle to this im 
pious charge. 

3. Concluding, in the third place, with a confutation 
of that censure of inhumanity towards the inhabitants of 
Canaan urged by Voltaire, to support his main accusation 
of HUMAN SACRIFICES, and urged as if it were itself in 
the number of such Sacrifices. 


In my entrance on the first head, let me previously ob 
serve, that the earliest direction for SAXCTIFICATJON, 
that is, (in the language of Moses) for SACRIFICE, is of 

* Ch. xxvii. ver. 29. 

t LLI Li;i ties Jtiifs semblait permettre ces Sacrifices. Il-estcUt 
dans Levitique ; si une amc vii tmte a etc promise a DIEU on nc poura 
la racheter t il fa at qiidlc meure. Les Livres des Juifs reportent que 
quand ils envoluirent le petit pais des Cananeens, ils niassucrerent 
dans plusieurs villages, les hi-mmes,.les i emmes, .les eniansr p&fce 
qu ils avoient vie devours. (Test siir cette Loi. qui fare lit lodes- les 
serments de Jephthc qui sacrilia sa fille, &c. Oeuvies de M. de Vol 
taire, Tom. xiii. p. 227. 8 Ed, 1756, 8vo. 

A A 3 the 


the first-born, expressed in these words*, SANCTIFY 
unto me ail thejirst-born, whatsoever openeth the womb 
amongst the Children of Israel, both of man and beast ; 
it is MINE. This is declared to be for a memorial of 
God s smiting K^ypt in favour of his chosen people. 
All the first-born of the Children of Israel are MINE, 
both man and beast : on the day that I smote the jirst- 
born in the land of Egypt, 1 SANCTIFIED them for 

But from this Sanctification or SACRIFICE, Man and 
unclean animals were exceptcd, arid redeemed. The re 
demption of the first-born of man is thus settled and ex 
plained " I have taken (says the text) the LEVITES for 
" all the FIRST-BORN of the Children of Israel: and I 
" have given the Levites as a gift to Aaron and his Sons, 
" to do the service of the children of Israel, in the taber- 
" nacle of the Congregation J." The redemption of the 
first-born of unclean animals, witli a repetition of the re 
demption of Men, is thus expressed : Even/ jirstling 
of an ass shalt thou redeem with a Lamb and alt the 
first-born of wan, cmongst thy Children shalt thou re 
deem^. The redemption-money, for both, is given to 
Aaron and his Successors ||; to whom the whole tribe of 
Levi was assigned for a vicarious (and in Heu of a more 
general) sane t if i cat ion of the first-born of man. 

This redemption was not on account of personal favour 
to a chosen people, but in abhorrence of HUMAN SACRI 
FICES, as appears plainly both froiA the LAW and the 

Moses, on his delivery of the LAW, thus solemnly 
forbids all curious inquiry concerning the Pagan rites of 
Worship, in the Nations round about them ; Inquire not 
after their GODS, saying, how did these nations SERVE 
their Gods? EVEN so WILL I DO LIKEWISE. The 
reason of the prohibition follows, they practised the 
horrid enormity of Child-sacrifice For every abomina 
tion to the Lord, WHICH HE I-IATETH, have they done 

* Exod. xiii. 2. t Numb.viii. 17. and Exod. xiii. 14, 15. 
J Numb. viii. 18, 19, arid to the same purpose, Ch.iii. 19, 13 45. 
Exod. xiii. 13. || Numb, xviii. 15, 16. 



THEIR GODS*. The dangerous curiosity here re 
strained, was not on account of the number and nature 
of the Gods of Canaan. For the striking absurdity of 
their Theogony or original, and the impiety of their 
Mythology or history, would have served to attach the 
Israelites more firmly to the LAW. The prohibition only 
respected an inquiry into the Canaanitish modes of wor 
ship, or, as it is better expressed in the text, HOW these 
nations served their Gods. And though this inquiry might 
at first, arise from nothing else than a wanton curiosity, 
yet the Legislator intimates that it would end in apostasy 
from .the LORD OF HOSTS even so will we do likewise \ 
that is, we will use those Pagan rites in the service of the 
God of Israel ; for they were little in danger, so early, 
to use Canaanitish rites in the service of the Gods of 
Canaan. Besides, the caution here is not against IDO 
LATRY but INFANTICIDE. Nor could they be much 
disposed to forsake the God of Israel for the Gods of 
Canaan, at the very time they were so successfully march 
ing, under the auspices of Moses, to exterminate that 
devoted people. He therefore could scarce conceive that, 
at this time, they needed such a caution. For, the reason 
he gives for restraining this hurtful inquiry is, lest they 
should worship their own God with Pagan rites; espe 
cially this most abominable of all, INFANTICIDE. And 
there was the more nee.d of this caution, since the first 
born cf man and beast, in Israel, were to be sanctified 
to the Isord , and though the fiivt-born of man was re 
deemed, while the first-born of the clean beasts were 
sacrificed, yet the love of corrupt and idolatrous Kites 
might give some propensity to a iatal mistake, and to slip- 
ill Sacrifice instead of &w edification. 

Afterwards when the Israelites became polluted with 
the infernal stains of Infanticide^ the PROPHETS never 
ceased to proclaim aloud God s abhorrence of this im 
piety. For, in order to impress upon the paganized or 
-apostate Israelites a due sense of their frequent defec 
tions, it was found necessary for these his messengers 
thoroughly to probe the consciences of such hardened 
wretches, which had been seared with the^ m- ofMolecli. 
* Dent. xii. 30. 

A A 4 Sacred 


Sacred History informs us how severely Ahaz was 
punished for his multiplied Idolatries ; bat principally 
for his " burning his Children in the fire, after the abomi- 
" nations of the Heathen [the Canaanites] whom the 1 
" Lord had cast out before the Children of Israel*." 
They sacrificed (says the Psalmist) their sons and their 
daughter* unto Dc dis the Idols of Canaan and the 
Land was polluted with blood insomuch that he ab 
horred his own inheritance^. " They have built the 
if high places of Baal (says Jeremiah) to burn their Sons 
" with fire, for burnt-offerings to IkalJ." And again 
they caused their Sons and their Daughters to pass 
through thejire, to Molech^. Ezekiel, likewise, accus- 
eth them of having caused their Som to pass through 
the fire to DETOUR thcm\\. But further, it would seem, 
by the following words of Jeremiah, that these impious 
sacrifices were offered, by the unnatural Jews, to the God 
of Israel himself " The Children of Judah have done 
" evil in my sight, saith the Lord ; they have set their 
" abominations in the house which is called by my name, 
* to pollute it, and they have built the high |>iaces of 
" Tophet, which is in the valley of the Son ot" Hinnom, 
" to burn their Sons and their Daughters in the fire, 
" which I commanded them not, neither came it into my 
" head**." The concluding words seem to intimate that 
these Apostates pretended to have received such a com 
mand ; or with what propriety was it so formally denied ? 
Possibly they might pervert the famous passage in Levi- 
tieus f f ; of which more hereafter. However, the whole 
of the text informs us clearly, that Child-sacrifice some 
times polluted the altars of the Temple. Ezekiel seems 
to confirm the same thing: " Moreover, this they have 
" done unto me; they have defiled my Sanctuary, in the 
" same day, and have profaned my Sabbaths. For when 
" they had slum their Children unto their Idols, then 
" they came, the same day, into my Sanctuary to~ pro- 
" fane it, and lo! thus have they done in the midst of 
" mine house Q" i. e. " When they had slain Children 

* 2 Cbron.xxviii. 3. f Psalm cvi. 37, 38. 40. J Ch. xix. ver. 5. 
Ch. xxxii. 35. || Ch. xxiii. 37. ** Ch. vii. 30, 31. 

If Ch. xxvii. 28, 29. I| Ch. xxiii. 38, 39. 

" tO 


" to their idols, they, on the same day, offered the like 
" horrid sacrifice to me." -And we know, it was their 
usual practice, amidst their defections, to join idol-worship 
to the worship of the God of Israel. 

The sacred Historian is still more express to this pur* 
pose; when he thus speaks of the wicked king Manasseh 
lie built altars in the house of the Lord and he built 
altars for alt the Host of Heaven, in the two Courts of 
the house of the Lord, and HE MADE ins SONS TO 
PASS THROUGH THE FIRE; and observed times, and 
used enchantments, c.* 

On the whole, the gross IMMORALITY of this horrid 
Rite, was that to which the abhorrence of God was 
principally, and often solely, directed. This truth would 
appear certain (did Scripture afford no other evidence) 
from the warning given by Moses to his People, on their 
going to take possession of the Promised Land. 

Bat a decisive passage in Isaiah cuts off the subter 
fuge of our Philosophers, who are ready to suppose that 
the declared abhorrence of human Sacrifices, so often re 
peated in Scripture, is confined to such as were directed 
to an IDOLATROUS OBJECT; for the Prophet, in the 
very place referred to, speaking in the name of God, de 
clares the utmost detestation of human Sacrifices when 
offered to himself: For, speaking to those immoral 
Israelites, who imagined they could atone for their vices 
by ritual observances, he tells them, that even legal 
sacrifices, when offered to him with corrupt dispositions, 
were as displeasing to him, as those abominable human 
Sacrifices would be, which the Law of Nature condemns. 
He that killetk aii ox, is as if he had slain a MAN ; he 
that sacrijiceth a lamb, as if he cut off A DOG S NECKf. 
Here, we see the ritual worship, commanded by God, is 
opposed to the Sacrifice of Man, abominated by the 
Law of Nature; and to the Sacrifice of a Dog, the thing 
most abhorred by the Law of Moses ; in whose ritual 
tiiis animal was held so totally unclean, that the hire 
of a whore and the price of a Dog, are put together 
as equally unfit to be brought into the house of the 

* 2 Kings xxi. 4, 5, 6. f Chap. Ixvi. 3. t Deut. xxiii. 18. 

II. We 



We now come to those two capital Passages, on which 
the Enemies of Religion found their impious Charge. 
The one, they consider as an indispensable COMMAND ; 
the other as an EXAMPLE, adapted to inforce the execu 
tion of it. 

The pretended Command is in Leviticus,, and con* 
tained in these words : NONE DEVOTED, WHICH SHALL 



Here is a Lazr, which our Philosophers, in their great 
sagacity, conceived did enjoin something. But being 
strangers to the subject, and ignorant of the phraseology, 
with heads likewise full of mischief, they discovered 
HUMAN SACRIFICES in a place where Moses was speak 
ing of quite another thing. 

"The Chapter, in which this Laic is found, contains 
directions for the making, and for the performance of 
Vows; a mode of obligation which had a natural place 
in a government THEOCRATICAL; where civil matters 
of obedience were intimately connected w ith religious. 
Now, that capital Command given to the Chosen 


mand so necessary to be observed, for the preservation 
both of their civil and religious Systems, needed, above 
all things, frequent repetitions of the sacred tie of Vows 
for its more exact performance; some of the softer as 
well as stronger passions of our Nature pushed forward 
by the delusions of self-interest, being always at hand to 
defeat or retard the divine sentence denounced against an 
INCORRIGIBLE People (of which more hereafter). The 
repetition of Vows, therefore, for the speedier accomplish 
ment of this great and laborious event (just like the re 
petition of oaths of allegiance in common states for the 
belter security of the establishment) was enjoined, or at 
least encouraged, by the Leaders of the Jewish people. 

Sometimes the Vow was made by the People, in a 
Body ; like that we find in the Book of Numbers " And 
|C Israel vowed a Vcw unto the Lord, an J said, If thou 

* Levit. xxvii. 2 

" wilt, 


" wilt, indeed, deliver this people [the Canaanites] into 
" my hand, then / will utterly destroy their Cities. Ancf 
" the Lord hearkened unto the Volet of Israel; and de- 
" livered up the Canaanites : and they utterly destroyed 
" them and their Cities*." Sometimes again, the vow 
was made by Particulars; by such whose power or 
situation best qualified them for the execution of this 
primary COMMAND : and to these, and for this sole 
purpose, was this strangely mistaken Text directed. 


" OF MEN," (or, as it is explained in the immediately 
preceding verse, no devoted thing, which a man shall 
devote unto the Lord) " shall be redeemed, but shall 
" be surely put to death f." These Vows were called 
the SANCTIFYING or DEVOTING men or things. In 
which, indeed, the Language of Religion is employed; 
and very naturally, for the reason given above. But to 
prevent the abusive interpretation of such Vcnvs, in the 
manner of our PHILOSOPHERS, by suffering more of 
Religion than the mere language to enter into the idea of 
them, the People are forbidden to extend their vows to 
what God himself had sanctified) such as \he first-fruits. 
Only the firstling of the beasts, which (says Moses) 
should be the Lord s first ling, no man shall sanctify it J. 
But if man was, for this reason, not to sanctify the first- 
fruits of beasts, much more was he restrained from sancti 
fying the first-fruits of Man ; since the first- fruits of 
Man were not to be put to death (like those whom human 
Vows had devoted), but to be redeemed. 

In & word, the men here devoted by men, and not to be 
redeemed, were NO SACRIFICES AT ALL, as the first- 
fruits of the Children of Israel WERE, arid, therefore, to 
be redeemed; but enemies taken in battle, to whom no 
quarter had been given; and whose lives, by the Law of 
Arms, were at the disposal of the Conqueror. M. Vol 
taire s ignorance of the Law of Moses, which occasions 
him to mistake a MILITARY EXECUTION for a RELI 
GIOUS SACRIFICE, might have been well excused, had he 
forborne to abuse what he did not understand. But to 
know his Virgil no better is a disgrace indeed. 

* Numb. xxi. 2* 3. t Levit. xxvii. 29. J Ver. 26. 

" Quis 


" Quis ILLAUDATI ncscit Busiridis aras ? 
says the great Poet, in plain detestation of human Sacri 
fices. Yet in the funeral Rites of Pallas, directed by the 
Hero of the Poem, (the Model of Religious Piety and 
civil wisdom) the captives taken in war are slain at the 
lighted Pile, without the least mark of the Poet s cen 
sure or disapprobation. 

" Vinxerat, et post terga manus quos mitteret umbris 
" Inferias, caeso sparsuros sanguine flammam." 
For their lives were forfeited by the Law of Arms, and 
only taken with a little more ceremony than is, at present, 
in use : the military execution being often performed at 
Tombs and Altars : for in the Pagan World Superstition 
had occasioned a confused mixture of things, sacred and 
profane. But in the Jewish Republic, where the Church 
and State were incorporated, this commixture made no 
other confusion than what arises from the mistakes of 
Men, ignorant of the nature of that Sacred Economy. 
Their God was their King; and their government in 
consequence was Theocratical. So that every act of 
State was in a certain sense, though not in the common 
one, an act of Religion. Obedience to the LAW was 
inforced by a Vow; and slaughter in and after Battle, a 
PEVOTEMENT to the Lord of Hosts; in support of the 
civil command to exterminate the Canaanites. 

But besides the singular Form of the Jewish Republic, 
which brought in the use of this language, the very genius 
of the People, modelled, indeed, on a theocratic adminis 
tration, disposed them to improve that mode of speech; 
so that matters merely civil and domestic are conveyed 
to us in the style of Religion. 

Thus highly coloured, both in the Camp, and in the 
Temple of the Lord of Hosts, was the language of the 
Jewish People. Which gave a pretence to the detestable 
Spinosa, to insinuate, that the whole of the Mosaic Reli 
gion consisted only in a SACRED PHRASEOLOGY. Though 
what he insinuates proves only, yet proves fully, that the 
DEVOTEMENT in question was a civil, not a sacrificial 
Rite. " Judoei (says he) nunquam causarurri mediarum 
" sive particularium faciunt mentionem, riec eas curant, 
" sed Religionis ac pietatis, sive ut vulgo dici solet, devo- 
2 " tionis 


" tionis causa, ad Deum semper recurrunt. Si enim, 
" ex. gr. pecuniam mercatura lucrati sunt, earn a Deo 
" oblatam aiunt ; si aliquid, ut fit, cupiunt, dicunt, 
" Deum eorum cor disposuisse; si aliquid etiam cogitant, 
" Deum id iis dixisse aiunt," &c.* 

Having now examined the pretended PRECEPT or 
Command ; and shewn that it has no relation to HUMAN 
SACRIFICE, but to quite another thing; we proceed to the 
EXAMPLE, the case of JEPHTHAH : for, on the Law 
of human Sacrifices (says the Poet Voltaire) it was, that 
Jephthah) who sacrificed his Daughter, founded his oath 
of Denotement. As this EXAMPLEhath given more alarm 
to the Friends of Religion than it deserves, and drawn 
them into forced and unnatural constructions of his rash 
and foolish \ r ow, it may be proper to consider the Man 
and his Manners, fairly and at large. 

jEpKTHAiif, a Bastard son of Gilead, by an Harlot, 
being cast out from a share of his Paternal Inheritance, 
by the legitimate Issue, took refuge in a strange land. 
What effects this expulsion must have on his religious 
Sentiments, we may learn from the case of DAVID; who 
thus expostulates with Saul, on his exile " If (says he) 
" they be your Counsellors, who have advised you to 
" this unjust usage of me, cursed be they before the 
tc Lord; for they have driven we put this day from 
" abiding in the Inheritance of the Lord., saying, GO, 
" SERVE OTHER GODS J." Now, if David, so learned 
and zealous in the LAW, was exposed at least to this in 
evitable temptation, by his exile in a foreign land, what 
must we think of Jephthah in similar circumstances ? who 
had nothing of David s knowledge of the Law, and con 
sequently none of his zeal for its support. In this foreign 
Land, Jephthah associated himself to a dissolute Band of 
Outlaws, who lived upon rapine and violence : not (it is 
confessed) the most discreditable profession, in those early 

* Tract. Theol. C. I. This \vtis said by Rpinosa in order to decry 
the MIRACLES recorded m Script are. But with the usual luck of every 
attempt of the same kind. For were this. very exaggerated account 
a true one, a stronger proof, of the reality and frequency of Aliraclm, 
could hardly be conceived in the nature of things. Since no People 
but such who had lived under a real THEOCRACY, could have con 
tracted a turn of mind- productive of so singular a Phraseology. 
f Judges xi. J i Sam, xxvi. 19, 



ages of barbarous manners. Amongst these men, he soon 
got to be the leader, and a distinguished Chief in all their 
lawless expeditions. So that his fame for military at- 
chievernents filled all the Regions round about. 

At this time, the Israelites in punishment for one of 
their defections from their God and King, Mere labouring 
under the oppression of the idolatrous Borderers. And 
the Amor lies making an excursion into Gileacl; the 
Israelites of this place, as most immediately concerned, 
sought to provide for themselves, as well as for their 
brethren (now become repentant), some Leader of 
superior power and distinguished capacity. And the Re 
putation of their Kinsman, Jephthdh> made them first 
apply to him. 

But Jephthah, with the frank roughness of a soldier of 
fortune, naturally upbraided them, on this occasion, with 
their former neglect and injustice, in permitting his father s 
house so cruelly to cast him out, to want and misery; 
and now, as meanly, without redressing his injuries, to 
fly to him in their distress. 

They reply, they were now come to make him that 
amends, by their choice of him for Head over all the In* 
habitants of Gilead. 

Jephthah accepts this satisfaction : and an Act is made 
of their proceedings according to the religious customs of 
those times. 

All this while, the Republic, the THEOCRACY itself, 
seems to have been little thought of, by this future Judge 
of Israel. Indeed the honour of so sacred a station had 
small charms for our licentious Outlaw. 

However, in consequence of the reconciliation, and in 
pursuance of the Choice which the Gilcaditcs had made 
of him, for their Head and Leader, he enters on his office. 
And now, perhaps, for the first time, be observed, towards 
his enemies, all the punctilios of the Law of Arms. 

He sent to know of the Children of AiniHon, why they 
committed hostilities against his countrymen. They an 
swered, that the Israelites had unjustly dispossessed them 
of their Lands; and that they were now assembled in arms 
to recover the inheritance of their Fathers. To this, the 
Bastard of Gilcad, like an able Advocate, as well as a 
determined Chieftain^ replied, That when Israel, under 



the conduct of Moses, had left Egypt, to take possession 
of the Land, promised to their Forefathers, and now 
given to them by their GOD, they had craved leave of the 
intermediate People, and particularly of the Children of 
Ammon, for a free passage through their Country, accord 
ing to the Law of Nations, which being denied unto 
them, they forced their way ; and w hen hostilely opposed, 
and their enemies overcome in battle, they took posses 
sion, as, by the Laws of War, they might do, of the 
Lands of the Conquered. So far was well; and suitable 
to the dignity of a Judge of Israel. 

But, by what follows, it appears that our famous Ad 
venturer was, as yet, more than half a Pagan ; for thus 
he proceeds So noic the Lord God of Israel hath dis- 
jmsessed the Amorltes from be/ore ftis People Israel j 
and sh on Idesi t hou possess it ? YV i L T x OT T H o u POSSESS 


POSSESS ? 80 wkotnaoever the LORD, OUR GOD, shall 
drive out from before, us, them uill we possess *. This 
was said, on the Gentile principle of local tutelary Deities, 
in all the Crossness of that notion ; not yet refined and 
rationalized by our Adventurer, on the ideas of the Law. 
But when he resumes the civil argument, he again reasons 
better: and very solidly pleads the general law of PRE 
SCRIPTION, in defence of his People While Israel 
(says he} du-elt in Heshbon and her Totem, and in Aroer 
and her Towm, and in all the Cities thai be along, 
by the Coasts of Arnon, THREE HUNDRED YEARS-; 
Why therefore did ye -not recover them WITHIN THAT 
TIME |? But the force of this Argument making no im 
pression, the negotiation ended in an appeal to arms. 
Jephth .ih leads out his Troops against Aminon. And, in 
the Forefront, without doubt, were those faithful Bands, 
which he had collected and disciplined in the Land of Tob. 
The first step he takes to invite Success, was the 
making an absurd Pagan Vow, that, if he returned with 
Victory, he would sacrifice, for a burnt-offering to God, 
whatsoever came iirst out of the doors of his house;]: to 
welcome his return. He came back a Conqueror; and 
his Daughter, impatient to celebrate his Triumph, being 
the first who met him, was, for ins Oath s sake, (though 
* Judges xi. 23, -24. f . .f-Ver. 26. % Ver. 31. 



with extreme regret, because, besides her, he had neither 
son nor daughter*,) sacrificed for her pains, according to 
the then established custom of Idolatry ; which, on such 
occasions, required a Sacrifice of what was most dear or 
precious to the offerer. For, I hardly believe that Jephthah 
was, at this time, so learned in the LAW, as even the Poet 
Voltaire ; or that he had proceeded, like him, so far in the 
sacred text, as to misunderstand or misinterpret this famous 
twenty -seventh Chapter of Leviticus, in support of so 
impious an action. The unhappy father appears, at this 
time, to understand so little of the LAW, as not to be able 
to distinguish what it had in common with Paganism, 
(namely, the custom of .offering eucharistical Sacrifices on 
every great and fortunate event) from what it had in direct 
opposition to it (viz. that dire impiety of human Sacrijice). 

The account here given appears to be the natural expla 
nation of a plain Story. But Commentators, full of the 
ideas of Papal, rather than of the Mosaic times ; and 
paying a blind reverence to the character of a Judge of 
Israel, make the Daughter, to save her father s honour, 
return vow for vow ; and so consecrate herself to t a Virgin 
State. Solutions like these expose Sacred Scripture to the 
scorn and derision of unbelievers. 

But against our account of JEPHTHAH S Vow, which 
makes the whole to be conceived and perpetrated on Pagan 
principles and practices, our adversaries, 

1. Bid us observe, that the action is not condemned. 
A censure, they think, it could not have escaped, had the 
Sacred Historian deemed it an impiety. 

2. That the text tells us further, that Jephthah went 
out in the Spirit of the Lord f, and therefore they con 
clude, that he returned in the same Spirit. 

3. Lastly, that Jephthah is ex toiled by the Author of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews^ and numbered in the class 
of sacred Heroes. 

To these objections, in their order. 

First, They who lay so much stress on the Action s 
having passed uncensured, consider neither the nature of 
the Composition, nor the genius of the Historian. The 
narrative itself is a brief Compendium, or rather extract 
from the Records of State, entered as t;- ings passed, and 
* Ver. 34. t Ver. 29, I Ch, xi. ver. 32. 



then laid up in the Archives of their Scribes. In this 
species of Composition it is not the wont to dwell either 
on the causes, the qualities, or the consequences of Actions, 
but simply to tell the naked Facts. 

Nor had the Writers of those times improved History 
into an art. They transcribed or abridged, merely for the 
sake of the people s information in facts, of what they 
found recorded in their venerable Archives. This was the 
case in the Story of the lying Prophet, in the affair of the 
Altar of Bethel*. His crime is neither condemned, nor 
js his punishment recorded. Had the History been a 
Romance, forged at pleasure, both these particulars had 
assuredly been dwelt upon at large. 

Besides, as the nature and quality of actions arc best 
seen by the Laics and Customs of the people concerned ; 
and the action in question was well understood, both by 
the Writer, and his Readers, to be condemned by the 
Mosaic Ritual, it less needed a Censure. The faithful 
Followers of the LAW, for whose service this adventure 
was recorded, wanted no historian of prophetic Authority 
to tell them, (after they had seen huwan Mien/ices exe 
crated iu almost every page of their History) that Jcph- 
t hah s sacrifice of his Daughter was either an impious 
imitation of Pagan practices, or an ignorant presumption 
in the half- paganized Votary, that he was here complying 
with the famous precept of the Law in Leviticus f, when 
indeed (as we have shewn at large) it related to quite 
another thing. 


Mot further, it is not peculiar to this story, to furnish 
an objection (such as it is) from the sacred Writer s not 
interposing with his own judgment, concerning the moral 
quality of the action related. Scripture abounds with 
instances of this sort ; a silence occasioned by one or 
other of the causes here explained. 

2. But Jcphthah (which is the second objection) Went 
out in the spirit of the Lord, and therefore (they con 
clude) he must needs return in the same spirit. 

Now though, on a less important occasion, I should 

be tempted to acquiesce in the Criticism, though not in 

tjie spirit, of Spinosa, that this expression was to be put 

to the account of the sacred phraseology of the Jews; 

* i Kings xiii. f Ch. xxvii. ver. 29. 

VOL. VI. B B and 


and to mean no niore than the strength, the courage, and 
the address of a consummate leader; yet the language 
being here applied to a Judge of Israel, and in the actual 
exercise of his office, I can readily allow that it signifies 
some supernatural assistance. 

But what then ? when the work committed to him, and 
for which he was thus qualified, was well over, we have 
i\o reason to suppose that the same spirit constantly rested 
on him, but very much to conclude the contrary. One 
of his most illustrious successors, SAMSON, had still a 
larger share of this divine Spirit imparted to him; yet no 
body imagines that it rested with him ; when, contrary to 
the LAW, he chose a wife from among the Philistines, or 
revealed the secret intrusted with him to Delilah; de 
linquencies much less criminal than the Sacrifice of a? 

3.- But then, " the Author of the Epistle to the. 
Hebrews extols him ; and lifts him into the number of the 
raost distinguished of the Jewish Heroes." But for what 
is he thus extolled ? For his rash vow ? No surely. 
David is extolled in the same place, and in the same man 
ner. Is it for the murder of Uriah, and adultery with his 
Wife ? Surely neither of the Heroes are extolled for these * 
exploits ; but for their FAITH in God, and their zeal 
for the advancement of the THEOCRACY. So says the 
Writer himself; where, recapitulating the works and 
achievements of FAITH, he goes on, in these words 
And wliat shall I more say, For the time would fail me to- 
t til of Gideon and Barak, and of Samson and of JEPH- 
THAif, cf David also and Samuel, &c* This FAITH was 
so active and eminent in DAVID, that, notwithstanding his 
tup gross, immoralities, he is called by God himself, A 
M^N;. .AFTER HIS owx HEART. For, as this illustrious 
Title neither covered, nor atoned, for his crimes, so neither 
did his crimes hinder its being bestowed upon him, when 
the question only concerned his zeal for the LAW and the 
THEOCRACY ; as I have shewn to these Philosophers, oiv 
Another occasion. 

To conclude with JEPHTHAH. We know, though only 
in general, that he lived long enough in the exercise of his 
.Ministry, and, consequently, under the occasional guid-, 

*.Ileb. xi. 32. 



ance of God s holy Spirit, to wipe out all the Pagan im 
pressions of his ill education. DAVID, with a much better 
in his early youth, kept on improving in the knowledge 
of the LAW. He wa"s* at first somewhat scandalized at 
foe prosperity of the wicked : but when he came into the 
sanctuary, i. e. when he had gained a more exact and per 
fect knowledge of the Dispensation, then, as he tells us, 
he understood the end of % hose men. In these respects, 
indeed, we are left more to our, conjectures concerning 
JEPHTHAH. His History tells us, he judged Israel for 
six years *. We are further informed (and this is all) that 
he defeated the Ephraimites f ; who had picked a ground 
less quarrel with him ; which ended as it is fit all such 
quarrels should end. 

But, though we have now done with the personal Cha 
racter of Jephthah, and his rash Vow ; we have something 
more to say of the general Character of a Judge of Israel^ 
as it holds in common with that of many other of God s 
chosen servants : whose faults and imperfections the malice 
of Unbelievers have carefully drawn out, and objected to 
us, as matter of scandal ; tending to impeach the veracity 
of Sacred History, and the Evidence that God thus inter 
posed in support of his revealed Will. 

To clear up this matter, it may be sufficient to observe, 
that when God sees fit, in an extraordinary way, to give 
a new revelation of his WILL to man, v/e may conclude, 
from the very nature of things, that he will not disgrace his 
own DISPENSATIOX, by the use of unworthy Instruments. 

Both the dignity and interests of Revelation require, 
that the first Bearers of these glad tidings to mankind 
should be fully possessed of that power of Virtue which 
true religion only can bestow. 

The dignity of Revelation requires that so bright an 
emanation from the very source of light and purity should 
not be conveyed to us through a polluted medium. The 
interests of it, likewise, reclaim against such an unworthy 

A sanctity of manners, which is so necessary to support 
the mission, is the natural and inseparable attendant ou 
the Office. For, in the promulgation of a new Religion, 
those marks of truth arising from the purity and 
* Judges xii. 7. f Ch, xii. ver. i. 

B B 2 reasonableness 


reasonableness of the Doctrine, which shew it to be; 
TORTIIY of the Author to whom it is ascribed, there is 
need, in order to prove that it ACTUALLY CAME FROM 
HIM, of certain MIRACULOUS pawers, declarative of the 
nature of the Dispensation ; and attendant on the saucti- 
iication of the heart of the Messenger. 

But the character of God s Instruments, and the conduct 
of Providence in the use of them, may be very different 
from those who are only raised up, anil employed for the 
support of an established Dispensation ; as in the Jewish 
economy ; or for the reformation of it, as in the Chris 
tian : though in the Jewish, administered by an extraor 
dinary Providence, these Instruments may have had 
(\itraordinarij powers intrusted to them, whkh those of the 
Christian had not. Here [/ . c. for the support or refor 
mation of things received and established] the same 
conclusion, tor the necessity of sanctity of manners, will 
not hold. It being sufficient, for this purpose, that God, 
i:i the settled course of his Providence, is incessantly 
producing GOOD OUT OF EVIL. And the irregular In 
strument is frequently made to serve, without his know 
ledge, and even against his will, the great ends of piety 
and truth. 

Of the evidence of this, the History of the Church 
affords us many examples. 

When God had gradually prepared, and, at length,, 
fitted his Chosen People for the reception of the LAM , his 
carlv Instruments were selected from the most virtuous 
amongst men, NOAH, ABRAHAM, and MOSES : 

And, again, when he first prepared the World for the 
promulgation of the GOSPEL (which was the completion 
uT the LA\V) he committed the care of it to men of the 
most unblemished and exemplary characters ; such as 
John the Baptist, and the blessed Apostles. 

But, in the ExtMhlivhwent, in the Support, and in the 
lie format ion of Religion (the second and inferior Opera 
tion of Divine Love to Man) God did not disdain ta 
employ lets perfect Instruments, in either Dispensation. 
He served himself of DAVID for the LAW, and of 
COXSTANTINE for the GOSPEL. And under the former 
of these Dispensations, both before and after the periocj 
here rcftrre J to y when he had decreed, cither to execute 

V 7 engeanca 


vengeance on the Oppressors of -sm offending People, or to 
clear the Holy Land of Idolaters, he frequently availed 
himself of the Agency of wicked Kings and licentious 
Jlulers. The same gracious Providence was displayed in 
the preservation of Religion under the latter Dispensation. 
For, when the time was come that the Christian Church 
was to be cleansed and purified from the long pollutions 
of an Antichristian Usurpation, -God was pleased to make 
use of Instruments, who had. neither motives nor manners 
that could do honour to the Rejbnnation they were ap 
pointed to bring to pass. 

UNBELIEVERS did not sufficiently consider this, when 
they made it an objection to revealed Religion ; nor 
PAPISTS, when they made the same objection to the Pro 
testant Reformation* To the First we have already said 
enough on this head ; and, to the other, shall only add at 
present, that we are far from being ashamed of receiving 
spiritual benefit from men, who supply these circumstances 
of reproach against themselves ; while we find reason to 
adore that Hand which turned the avarice (if such was the 
case) of a furious Friar, and the luxury of a debauched 
Monarch, from their natural Mischiefs, to become pro 
ductive of the greatest blessings ; the Restoration of 

But it is now time to go on with M . Voltaire, whose 
Philosophy ) being grafted on his Poetry, produces Fruit 
worthy of the Stock it comes from, viz. Fable and Fiction. 
So- that the next instance he produces of the encourage 
ment which the LAW gives to human Mien/ices, is Saul s 
abortive vote. The wonder is, that he did not go on with 
the cases of Achan the five Kings of the Amorites 
Sisera Agag Adonijah the five sons of Saul, hung up 
inOibeah -and in short, all the civil and military execu 
tions recorded in the Old Testament. But in his rage to 
run down Religion, he has out-shot himself, and forgot his 
subject. To bring him to himself, I will, in charity, direct 
him to a text, which, if he knows how to pervert with pro 
per dexterity, may appear more to his purpose than any of 
this senseless prate. It is in the Prophet HJiccth: who 
addressing himself to his corrupt and idolatrous Country 
men, amongst his other ex probrations, ridicules, and, at the 
time, instructs them, in this manner, " Wherewith 
tt B 3 " shall 


" shall I come before the Lord ? and bow myself before 

li the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt- 

<c offerings, with Calves of a year old ? Will the Lord 

<c be pleased with thousands of Rams, or ten thousands 

" of rivers of Oil? SHALL I GIVE MY FIRST-BORN 


c FOR THE six -OF MY SOUL? He hath shewed thee, 
" O man ! what is good. And what doth the Lord re- 
" quire of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to 
" walk humbly with thy God * ? " 

Reasoners, like our poet, may fancy, that the Prophet 
is here reckoning up the most efficacious of the LEGAL 
SACRIFICES; and consequently, that INFANTICIDE and 
HOMICIDE are amongst the first of that number, since all 
are said to be offered up to the Lord the high GocL 

To confute this groundless fancy, let me previously 
repeat these two observations, First, that the Law of 
Moses is so far from requiring or directing human sacri- 
Jlces, that it ever treats them with the utmost abhorrence; 
and therefore was very unlikely to speak of them as legal 
Sacrifices : secondly, it hath been shewn that the Idola 
trous Jews of these times, were accustomed to bring 
into the TEMPLE-SERVICE the most detested Rites of 

This being premised, let us consider the season in which 
these Prophecies, sent to Micah, were delivered ; to 
whom they were addressed and to what end, directed. 
They were sent, the prophet tells us, in thedayspfJotham, 
Ahaz, and Hczckiah, Kings of Judah f. 

We lind by the History of these Kings, that, in their 
reign, the House of Judah was sunk into all kinds of vice 
and iniquity. But still the leading crime, through the bad 
example of these monarchs, was IDOLATRY ; which con 
sisted, sometimes in worshipping the God of Israel in the 
Pagan place* of .worship, called THE HIGH PLACES; at 
other times in worshipping Idols in the very place of God s 
worship, THE TEMPLE. Jotham, indeed, is said to have 
done that icliich was right in the sight oj tht Lord. How- 
beit that the HIGH PLACES were not removed; the 
People sacrificed and burnt incense still in the high 
places J. But his son, Aliaz, we are told, " did not that 
* ver. 6, 7, 8, f Ch. i. ver. i. J 2 Kings xv, 34, 35. 

" which 


" which was right in the sight of the Lord his God, like 
" David, his Father. But he walked in the way of. the 
" Kings of Israel. Yea, and made Ms Sous to pas* through 
" the FIRE, according to the abominations of the Heathen, 
" whom the Lord -cast out from before the Children of 
* Israel*." Hezekiah supplied what was wanting in the 
Grandfather, and reformed what was amiss, during the 
wicked reign of his Father. 

Amongst a people so corrupt, while any sense of Reli 
gion still remained, Rites and Ceremonies would always 
take the lead of moral duties. The Prophet seems to have 
availed himself of the good reign of Hezekiah : and to 
aid the reformation, which that Monarch had begun, at 
tacks labouring Superstition in its head -quarters, amidst 
the fires of Moloch- 

But to strike at the root of the evil, which was substi 
tuting ritual modes of Worship, in the place of moral 
duties, he informs them how unacceptable the external 
pomp and pageantry of Religion was to the God of Israel, 
when not accompanied with purity of heart, and integrity 
of manners. This is the general sense of the Text quoted 
above: which, without doubt, should be thus paraphrased 
Wherewith shall I come before the Lord (says the 
Prophet, personating an idolatrous and immoral Jew), 
shall I bring a pn fusion of Calves, and Rams, and Oil, 
AS THE LAW DIRECTS; Or if these be inmfjfccient, or 
unacceptable to the Deity, shall 1 scelc, as is now the 
practice, for a more powerful atonement, AMONGST THE 


of something still more precious and worthy the Altars of 
SACRIFICE? Vain man, (subjoins the Prophet) do riot God 
and Nature proclaim, that without VIRTUE. Rites and 
Ceremonies are of no -avail, whether they be such as the 
LAW prescribes, or such as IDOLATERS (to whose practices, 
thou art so enslaved) impiously fancy to be still more 
horribly efficacious. 

And how, human Sacrifices came to be so esteemed, 
we have shewn, in the course of this dissertation, con 
cerning the rise and progress of Sacrifice. 

2 Kings xvi. 3. 

B 4 III. From 



From the Sacrifice of particular men, charged by 
M, Voltaire, on the Jewish LAW, he rises in his impiety 
to accuse it of tlic SACRIFICE OF A WHOLE NATION. 
These are his words " It is said in Leviticus that none 
" devoted which shall be devoted of men shall he re- 
" deemed, but shall mrely be put to death. The Jewish 
" books boar evidence, that when the Israelites overran 
<( the little country of Canaan, they massacred, in most 
t of the villages, men, women, and children because 
tk they had been DEVOTED." 

In tiiese words are included two charges against the 
LAW. i. That this devoting of the Canaanites was a 
religious Sacrifice. 2. Or, at least, a commanded exter 
mination of a whole people, by the ministry of the 
Israelites. So that if one of them should fail, the other 
yet may hold. 

I have already acquitted it of the first, by an expla 
nation of the famous mistaken text in the xxviith chapter 
of Leviticus. We come now to the second, the censure 
of extreme cruelty and inhumanity in executing the com 
mand. And this will bring us to the concluding head, on 
this subject. 

ministers his Sovereignty in two different ways: while 
moral Governors amongst men can, in their several de 
partments, administer theirs only in one. 

God, the Author of Nature, and Frumcr of its Con 
stitution, hath so ordered and combined moral Entities, 
that VIRTUE generally, or for the mo^t part, produceth 
HAPPINESS ; while MISERY is as generally attendant 
upon VICE. On this disposition of things, the rewards 
and punishments of FREE AGENTS are tirst of all ad 
justed. But this makes it neither superfluous nor inex 
pedient for the God of the Universe to punish and reward 
in another manner, likewise. Not superfluous ] since this 
constitution of Nature does not always, by reason of 
certain traversies \\\ free agency, produce its designed 
effects. Not inexpedient ; since, in that other manner, 
the power of the divine Administration is more sensibly 
manifested ; as in the first way his Wisdom may be 



better collected : While, both together serve more fully 
to convince us, that the FIRST CAUSE is a free Agent; 
and that the constitution of Nature is his ordinance ; 
aurl not the effect of chance or destiny. 

On these accounts, a reasonable analogy would lead 
us to conclude, from what passeth in the government of 
the NATURAL v;oLiLi), that, in the early ages of man kin ;i, 
when an EQUAL PROVIDENCE prevailed (as it did while 
men retained the knowledge of their Governor and 
Creator; of which more in its proper place) God would 
frequently interpose, in an extraordinary manner, to 
prevent or redress those irregularities which would, from 
time to time, arise, and did actually arise in God s moral 
government, while sotc/y administered by that relative 
order of things, which his wisdom had so beautifully con 
nected, and so firmly established, as to be disordered by 
nothing but the traversiss of free agency in his Creatures, 

That he did thus, in fact, interpose, holy Scriptures 
bear full evidence. The first account we have of it, after 
the DELUGE (in which, this part of God s moral admi 
nistration was so signally displayed) is in the fate of 
Sodom and Gomorrah: And afterwards, in the EXTER 
MINATION OF TiiE CANAANITES : both these nations 
having, by the same unnatural crimes, jilted up the mea 
sure of their iniquities. 

In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, the enormity of 
their vices, and the total depravity of their manners, 
impose silence on the most profligate opposers of Reli 
gion, however clamorous they may be in the Patronage 
of the Canaanitcs. Their Plea, in iavour of these, arises 
from the Choice God is said to have made of the 
INSTRUMENTS of his Vengeance. Fire and Brimstone 
they easily submit to : but Fire and Sicord revolts their 

They can never (they tell us) be brought to believe 
that the common Father of All would employ some 
of his reasonable Creatures to execute his vengeance 
upon others of the same species, even though these others 
had been justly sentenced to perdition for their beastly 
and inhuman Vices. 

They pretend to say, " that God could not, con 
sistently with his nature and attributes, put fellow- 


creatures on such an employment/ They have offered 
no reasons for this bold assertion: and I can find none. 
In the mean time, we must needs be much edified with 
the modesty of these men ; who deny that liberty to God, 
-which they are not backward to allow to their earthly 
Sovereigns : Amongst whom, the right of employing om 
part of their Subjects to execute their Sentence on 
another, is every where practised, without censure or 

But they say further, " that although God might, vet 
lie certainly would not have recourse to human agency in 
this matter, on account of the mischiefs which such 
agency was likely to produce. 

First, as it is extremely liable to abuse. Every Pre 
tender to a divine command, whether feigned by an 
Impostor, or fancied by an Enthusiast, would, when 
supported by this example, never suffer their Neighbours 
to live in peace. And Saracen armies and Popish 
Crusades would be always at hand to carry on desolation 
in the name of God." 

Secondly, " this instrumentality must have an ill 
(effect on the MANNERS of the Israelites, by making their 
Jiearts callous, and insensible to the calamities of their 
Fellow-Creatures." These are the objections of our 
PHILOSOPHERS. But before they give us time to reply, 
they kindly take the trouble off our hands, and will needs 
answer for us, themselves. This is one of their usual 
tricks, to stop or cover tlie disgrace of a foolish Sophism, 
l)y a shew ot candour. But, indeed, their aim is to draw 
the Advocate of religion from solid ground, which is 
fairly and steadily to confute infidelity, ON ITS OWN 
pRixfipLF.s. Of this slight of hand, the Poet Voltaire 
has here given us an example worthy of him. - 
This [the extermination of the Canaanites] had been 
cm enormous crime, had not God himself, THE SOVEREIGN 


are not to ask a reason, so ordained-, in the impenetrable* 
depths of kis justice. Indeed! But we will be bold to 
bring hin back to the state of the question. " God the 
3i o UAL GOVERNOR of the World could not or would not 
($$y ufj believers) make use of human Instruments . for 
the" destruction of the Canaanites." This is the objection. 



But to keep us from answering, they take the business 
into their own hands God (says this prince of Philo 
sophers) the CREATOR, the sovereign arbiter of life and 
death, of whose conduct we are not to ask, what dost than? 
hath foreclosed all reasoning, in the impenetrable depths 
of his Justice" 

Thus they raise their objection against a command 
of God, as MORAL GOVERNOR of the Universe, (and 
such lie is always represented in Scripture) and then, 
to stop our mouths with a Flam, answer the objectiou 
themselves, by putting a PHYSICAL CREATOR in his 

Now, of the actions of a MORAL GOVERNOR, we may, 
with clue modesty and humility, ask the reason; Shall 
not THE JUDGE OF ALL THE EARTH do right ? was 
asked * in a similar case, by the Father of the Faith fuL 
But, to the PHYSICAL CREATOR of the Universe, who 
will venture to say, what doest thou f? Illustrious Phi 
losopher! permit us therefore to answer for ourselves. 
We say, that the moral Governor of the World can never 
be debarred from carrying on his Administration in such 
a way as may best suit the ends of divine Wisdom, 
because human folly may encourage itself to raise, on 
that ground, an impious and abusive imitation. And, 
neither under natural, nor under revealed Religion, hath 
God thought fit to exempt or secure his Laws from such 

God, under natural Religian, in the ordinary course 
of his Providence, hath, by annexing evil to Vice, made 
that Constitution of tilings the Instrument of punish 
ment ; but how hath this Dispensation been dishonoured, 
and even to the disturbance of Society itself, when these 
punishments, interpreted by ignorant or uncharitable 
men, have been turned into EXTRAORDINARY JUDG 
MENTS ? Again, Peter and John said, what every honest 
Deist is ready to say, We must obey God rather than 
Man\. Yet how perpetually has this truth been abused 
by Rebels and Fanatics. 

Under Revealed Religion, MIRACLES, (the necessary 
Credential of those intrusted with its promulgation) by 
which Power, both the physical and intellectual Systems 
* Gen.xviii. 25. f Job ix. 12. J Acts v. 29. 



%v ere control led, have yet occasioned innumerable abuses, 
defiling every age of the Churcli with fantastic Prodigies, 
and lying Wonders. 

But why do I speak of these sanctions of Revelation, 
(the Credentials of God s Messengers) when the very 
Communication of hie Will to Man, REVELATION itself 
hath filled all ages and nations with Impostors, pretending 
to a divine Commission? 

liiit our Philosophers go on; and say, "That this 
ofnce of destruction imposed upon the Israelites, must 
have produced an- ill effect on their Jlforal Character, 
.by giving them wrong notions of the divine Nature ; 
and by vitiating their own ; as it had a tendency to 
destroy or to weaken the Social passions and afiections." 

Nay, further, they pretend to see the marks of these 
evils in the Character of the chosen People : whom, 
therefore, instead of pitying, (and if the evils arose from 
the cause they assign, were most deserving of pity) they 
have most mercilessly abused and misrepresented. But 
to answer to the FIKST FART of this infidel objection, 
which pretends that the Jews were brought, by this 
employ ine-nt,. to entertain wrong ideas of the Divine 
A tf/wj-r, I reply, The most adorable attribute of God,, 
the moral Governor of the world, is his LONG-SUFFIC 
ING, by which he bears with the crimes and follies of 
men, in order to brin;^ them to repentance: Now this 
attribute he hath made manliest to all : but more fully 
to his chosen People^ even in the very case of these 
devoted Canaanihs. For when their crimes were arrived 
at the height of human depravity, Me still withheld his 
Ly.nd, and by divers awakening Judgments, gave them 
tinse find invitation lor repentance. But on their neglect 
r.:id contempt of his repeated warnings, He, at length, 
was forced, as it were, to pour out his full vengeance 
upon then i. 

The Author of the Apocryphal Book, of the Wisdom 
cf Solcnton, thus graphically paints their case, in an 
Address to the Almighty : " Thou hast mercy upon 
" all thou winked ;: 7 Ihe Sins of Men, because they 
* c should amend Tho sparest all ; for they are thine, 
ki thou Lover of Souls 1 Therefore thou chastenest 
" them, bv little and little, that offend ; and earnest 

" them 


" them by putting them in remembrance wherein they 
< have offended ; that leaving their wickedness, they 
* may believe in thee, O Lord ! Far IT WAS THY WILL. 


" thou Imtest for doing most odious works of Sorceries, 
<c and WICKED SACRIFICES merciless murderers of 
" children, and devourers of mans jlesh, ami the feasts 
" of blood Nevertheless even those thou sparedst as 
" Men*, and didst send Wasps, forerunners of thine 
" host, to destroy them by little and little executing thy 
" judgments upon them by little and little, THOU GAYEST 
" THEM PLACE OF REPENTANCE; not being ignorant 
*< that they were a naughty Generation and their 
<e cogitations would never be changed f." 

The Canonical Books of Scripture authenticate what 
this Sage Writer of after-times, here delivers, concerning 
God s dealing with these devoted Nations. 

Moses, on the egression of the Israelites from Egypt, 
speaks thus to them, in the Person of the Almighty 
" I will send Hornets before thee, which shall drive 
s< out the Hivitc, the Canaanite, and the Hittite from 
" before thee. I will not drive them out from before 
" thee in one year, lest the land become desolate ; but 
" by little and little will I drive them out from before 
" thce:{;." And again in his last exhortation to his 
People, " Behold the Lord, thy God, will send the 
" Hornet amongst them, until they that are left, and 
" hide themselves from thee, be destroyed ." And 
Joshua, on the like occasion, tells the People that what 
Moses had promised, in the name of the God of Israel, 
God had fulfilled / sent the HORNET before you, 
which drove them out from before you, even the two 
Kings of the Amorites || . 

Here, the Reader may observe, that the Apocryphal 
Writer gives one reason for the temporary plagues, 
which forerun the total destruction of the Canaanites; 
and the Authentic Text gives another; nor will the 

t * i. e. for the sake of their rational nature, though by their un 
natural vices they had forfeited all the prerogatives olhumanitv. 
f Ch.xi. 33 & seq. Ch. xii. 2. & seq. | Exod. xxiii. -28. 

l)eut> vii. 20. . H Josh, xxiv, 12. 



learned Reader be at a loss to account for this differ 

The Israelites, under their Leader, Moses, did not 
want to he told, that those temporary Plagues were sent 
in mercy. They had, on the first opening of his Com 
mission, been instructed by him, in the attributes of the 
true God, his long suffering and bearing with the con 
tradiction of Sinners] and his merciful acceptance even 
of a late-delayed Repentance. They had experienced 
the unwearied exertion of this attribute, even in their 
Own case, when their repeated perversities, which would 
have tired out every thing but injinite Goodness, were as. 
often pardoned as they were committed. So that they 
were not ignorant, though their degenerate Posterity, in 
the time of this Apocryptical Writer, might want to be 
informed of the gracious purpose, in those warnings to a 
devoted People. 

And as there was another nse in these probationary 
plagues, viz. the wasting the Inhabitants of Canaan, this 
was the design which Moses and Joshua principally insist 
on, -as it was the greatest encouragement to a dastardly 
People. MGSCS, in the name of his Master, promiseth 
to scud HORNETS before them, which SHOULD DRIVE 
OUT the Jiivite, e. And Joshua reminds his People 
how the promise had been performed Gvd sent the. 
HORNET before you, winch drove them out from before 
you, &c. 

This assurance was no more than needed. The cow 
ardice contracted in a long state of Slavery; (a state 
fairly recorded, and deeply lamented by their Leader) 
required the assistance of all NATURE in their support. 
" O nimium dilecte Deo cui militat /Ether, 
" Et conjurati veniunt ad Classica venti." 
But though these warning Judgments, these chastise- 
wcnts of mercy, were lost on those to whom they Were 
sent, yet they were not cast away ; for, in aggravating 
the Crimes of the Canaanites, they served, at the same 
time, to promote their speedier extermination. So ad 
mirably is the moral government of Cod administered, 
that its acts, directed to various purposes, are never 
issued in vain. But what is said in holy Writ, of the 
previous punishments on the Canaanites, in mercy, is 



given only as a specimen of them, and not for a complete 1 
list, as in the record of the trying plagues of Egypt, 
So that we are not to conclude, that the destructive 
Animals, sent amongst those miscreants, were only wasps 
and hornets ; or that, amongst the awakening punish 
ments, DISEASE was not one. When God was pleased, 
in after-times, to punish their Descendants, the Philis 
tines, for their profanation of the ARK ; (which, for 
the sins of his people, he suffered to fall into their hands) 
the sacred writers tell us, that they, who so profaned 
it, were smitten with emerods in their secret parts*. 
This is the only punishment there mentioned. Yet, by the 
account of the atonement, or trespass- offering, it appears 
that there was another. The Philistines sent back with 
the Ark, which they restored, the images of Jive emerods \ 
and FIVE MICE IN GOLD "I". Who can doubt, but that, 
in this addition to the atonement, another punishment 
was intimated, viz. the devastation of their Lands by mice? 
But the sacred Writer does not leave us to mere con 
jecture. In speaking of these mice, he thus qualifies 
them, Mice that MAR THE LAND. But this is net 
all. The text here acquaints us, though occasionally, 
with two punishments, inflicted on the Canaanites , which 
the history of their expulsion does not particularly men 
tion. We understand how fit Instruments of general 
devastation MICE must needs be: and we may guess 
how well suited the other punishment was for their 
unnatural Crimes ; nor would cither one, or the other, . 
cease to remind diem of the vices or punishments of 
their Ancestors, the Canaanites, so that, avoiding the 
manners of their ancestors, they might (if possible) escape 
their total destruction. 

I shall conclude this point with an observation which 
naturally leads to the next, that is to say, to the SECOND 
PART of this infidel objection, viz. " the EFFECT which 
the destruction of the Canaanites must be supposed 
to have on the minds of the MORAL INSTRUMENTS 
of their punishment." A matter most deserving our 

It cannot be doubted but that the Almighty displayed 
bis mercy and long -suffering on Sodom and Gomorrah, 

* i Sam. Y. 6, f Chap. vi. 4, 5. 

>:-,., in 


in some way analogous to what lie practised in the Land 
of Canaan, (and how gracious he was in the extent of 
that mercy, we learn from- Abraham s intercession for 
those Cities*) though the particulars of it be not re 
corded by the sacred historian : Whose silence in the 
one case, and not in the other, may be clearly under 
stood. Those execrable Cities were destroyed immedi 
ately by Goers own hand, in letting loose the Elements 
(the treasurers of his wrath) upon them. In the deletion 
of the Canaanites, he was pleased to employ HUMAN 
INSTRUMENTS. These were to be used according to 
their nature; not as Entuitcs merely Physical, but as 
moral agents likewise : Ikings not only endowed with Sense, 
but Sentiment. Now i t seemed but fit that such ct^oits 
should be instructed in the reason and occasion of their 
Commission ; especially as it was a matter of high im 
portance; no less than to preserve them from judging 
perversely of the divine attributes. Accordingly Moses- 
obviated this mischief by a detail of the abominable 
manners of this devoted People : together with a memorial 
of the ineffectual issue of their many chastisement * hi 
wercy to bring them to repentance, and to save them 
from utter deletion. 

As the mischief was thus effectually obviated, the 
Israelites were, at the same time, secured from that 
other, (which is the second point objected to tlidr 
( Commission) its tendency to vitiate the most amiable 
passion of our nature, by destroying or weakening the 
benign and social feelings for the miseries of our fellow 
creatures. For what could God s gracious dealing with 
these incorrigible Miscreants teach all, who (like the 
Israelites) were intimately informed of their crimes, and 
long delayed punishment, but, in imitation of God s 
long forbearance, to shew mercy and compassion to their 
offending Brethren in distress. Nor, in fact, do we find 
that the Jew* were more steeled to, or insensible of, the 
calamities of humanity (bating those of this devoted 
People) than other men, in. the early Ages of society, 
were wont to be. And if they were not much more 
humanized, by being better taught, as well as fed, than 
the rest of mankind, it must be ascribed, not to this 

* Gen. xviii, 


Notes.] t)F MOSES DEMONSTRATE!). 3*5 

Commission, but to a certain native perversity, which (as 
strange as it may at first sk^-t appear) might be one, 
amongst the very many reasons of God s choice of them, 
for his PECULIAR, as it made them the properest subjects 
to work upon, i or a fuller manifestation, of his infinite 
mercy towards the Sons of Men. Where it might be 
seen, in the deviations from right of two People thus 
connected and related, that the one was destroyed, after 
all means had been employed, without effect, to bring 
them to REPENTANCE; and the ottier pardoned and 
highly favoured, when the same merciful forbearance had 
produced its fruit of a timely REPENTANCE, and return 
to GOD, after every transgression ; and, at length, a 
determined perseverance in this their capital duty (ad 
herence to the true Gotl) for many ages, even to the 
present time. 

But it may still be asked, though no mischief was 
derived towards the Instruments of this extraordinary 
Commission, yet what good could such a commission pro 
duce? I answer, much, and constant; for besides a 
political benefit to an abject unwarlikc people, in teaching 
them the use of arms ; who were to make their destined 
way to Empire, as well by their own power, a$ by the 
extraordinary aid of the Almighty; in order to avoid a 
lavish waste of miracles : besides this, (I say) there 
were moral advantages, great and lasting, derived to this 
Instrumentality. Horror and- aversion in the Israelites 
to those unnatural Crimes which had occasioned .the 
deletion of the Canaanitcs ; whose punishment must 
be intimately impressed on the minds of the chosen People, 
by their being appointed the executioners of God s 
vengeance. To confirm this, we may observe, that both 
J\Ioses and Joshua, by incessantly reminding them of the 
horrid depravity of that devoted People, had their eyes 
always intent upon this good effect. 

P. 294. [II.] The eloquent Bossuet saith rightly, that 
Protestants have but lamely supported the FIGURE, of 
THIS is MY BODY, &c. by those I am the vine I am 
the door.- -And the reason he gives has its weight - 
Jems (says he) in the institution of the -Lord s. Suppcj\ 

VOL, VI. C c 


neither propounding a parable, nor explaining an 
allegory* But when the learned Writer would have 
us infer from this, that there could be no other occasion 
for the use of a FIGURE, he imposes his usual artifice 
upon us ; which was always to keep out of sight what 
would have detected his slight of hand. He knew there 
were other occasions, of employing figurative expres 
sions, such as juing and declaring the NATURE oif A 
KITE. Ancl this was the occasion here. But then, says 
he, the words are detached and separated from all other 
discourse there is no leading preparation f. So say 
the Socinians likewise ; in order to infer a contrary con* 
elusion. But we have Already shewn, that they are both 

There was a leading preparation ; and that, a plain 
one, namely, the celebration of the paschal Supper, 
And we have shewn, it was the custom of our Lord to 
be led by what passed before him, to regulate his language 
on ideas thus prepared. Nor was the comecration of 
the Elements in the SUPPER OF OUR LORD SEPARATE 
from all other discourse. It was preceded bv, and con 
nected with, a most affecting discourse on the death and 
sufferings of our Redeemer. Therefore the words of 
the Consecration do not, as M. Bossuet pretends, carry 
their whole meaning within themselves ; but refer to 
things preceding and exterior. So that the Bishop s 
triumphant conclusion loses much of its lustre, when he 
says, what 1 pretend to evince is, the embarntsinto which 
these words THIS is JMY BODY, throws all the Protestant 
party there was no reason J or using these S IIIOXG 
TERMS /or the. Institution of the Eucharist rather than 
for Baptism. r j t his place 1 foretell shall be the eternal 
and inevitable confusion of the defenders of the FIGURA- 
TJV.E SENSED. There was no more reason, on the Pro- 

* quand les uns opposoient, ccci est mon corps, les autrcs repon-t 
cloient, Je suis Ic rig fit Je suib la poite lc pier re etmt Christ 
\\ est vrui qiie ces examples u etpient pas sen-ihlabks. Ce ifetuit ni 
n proposant une pavabole, ni en expliquant une allegoric. 

f Ces paroles [ceci est moh Corps, &c.] detachees de tout autre 
fliscours, portent tout leur sens en elles-mcines. 

J Get endroit sera 1 eteinelle et inevitable confusion des Defenseurs 
^u SENS FIGURE, Hist. des. Var. Tom. i. p. 477. 8vo. 



test ant principles, (says he) Jbr chux/xg these STT.OXG 
TERMS here, than in the rite of Baptism* Surely, there 
was a very good one. For if it was the purpose of 
divine Wisdom to explain the nature of the Rite, only hy 
the words of the CawecrotwiL) which it is agreed it wa.% 
as well by him who holds it to be a real Sacrifice, as by 
us who hold it is only a .feast upon Sa&ifice, there was a 
necessity for the use of these terms. This was not the 
case in instituting the Rite of Baptism, whose nature is 
i\cprsdy defined. Besides, here the matter, administered, 
was WATKtt, an cleioemt always at hand, and therefore 
fitly called by its proper name. -But the -FLESH and 
BLOOD of the Sacrifice, of which the Lord s supper was 
a festive commemoration, not being then -at hand, as 
Christ was not yet offered on the Cross, the Elements 
of Bread ami IVbie, substituted in their place, were, hy 
<an elegant and necessary conversion, called tiie body and 
-bloody as these elements only \vcre declarative of the 
nature of the Rite, viz. a feast upou Sacrifice. To 
support this reasoning still further. Another sacred 
Rite, that of the imposition of lund^ in procuring the 
descent of the HO^Y SIM HIT, is -called tire BAPTISM BY 
1*1 RE ; in which, both the terms arz figurative, as, in the 
Baptism by \Vato\ both are literal. And why this 
difference? I ecause the Agent or Instrument of this 
Baptism by Fire being spiritual, there was need of figu 
rative terms, taken irom material tilings, to aid the 
igrossness of our conceptions, concerning the irwmner of 
-ttjc operation. So tiiit all the mystery ia this affair, 
(I moan, so far forth as concerns the terms oj the 
institution) is no more than this; \\lic-\\ t!:e things com- 
jnanicated are .of a sj.)ii-iti.?(il i-at -sr^, i\s the gilts of the 
holy Spirit ; or of a material natiu*e not v -:ct hi cwe, as the 
ilesii of a Sacrifice, not yet oiiercd up, aud {hereto re need- 
jug another body to be substitetcd in its place, there, tlu3 
employing figurative .term* bccoaves necessary. But when 
the thing communicated is a material Substance, at hand, 
; and actually capable of being employed, as Ifaier in 
JtiaptiMii, it would rather confound, than aid our 
, to use improper y that \s, figurative terms, 

C C 2 f. 298. 


P. 298. [I.] They had one cominun nature so far as 
they really conveyed, or were foolishly imagined to coil- 
vey, beneiirs to the participants. But St. Paul joining 
to the Christian and the Jewish, the Gentile sacrificial 
Feasts, he thought it logically necessary to make a dis 
tinction between the real and the imaginary benefits; 
which he does in this manner What say I then? that 
an IDOL is any thing; or that which is offered to Idols is 
any thing? No, (says he) both are nothing, i.e. are 
equally incapable of conveying benefits. That this must 
be his meaning, appears from his predicating the, same 
thing both of the Idol and the offering. Now as the 
offering had a PHYSICAL existence, what hindered but 
that, in his opinion, the Idol might have a METAPHY 
SICAL? Though in an efficacious and MORAL sense, 
Both were nothing. This interpretation shews that the 
Apostle was perfectly consistent, when just before he calls 
these Idols NOTHING, and yet, presently after, says they 
were DEVILS, whom, we know, in his opinion, were 
SOMETHING. The calling these Idols, Devils, served to 
explain his meaning when he said Idols were nothing, to 
be this, that no benefit was to be expected from them. And 
to intimate yet further, that so far from receiving benefit 
from Idols ^ their Worshippers, by this intercourse with 
them, were subject to great harm and mischief. In order 
to insinuate this latter assertion, the Apostle changes his 
first idea of an Idol, which he used in common with the 
Gentiles, to this second, which he, and all the Christians, 
of that time, had of them. The Idols, to whom the 
Gentiles intentionally. sacrificed, were their national Gods, 
the celestial Bcdiex, their dead Ancestor* ; their Kjugs 
and Benefactors , all of them, long ago, engrafted into 
the public worship. From such, the Apostle owns, they 
could receive neither good nor harm; these being only 


as the Original Author and still the fomenter of Idolatry, 
makes him properly and peculiarly the IDOL OF THE 
ALTAR. From such an Idol, they, to whom the Apostle 
writes, must readily confess, much harm would arise from 
communicating with him, in a Sacrificial ov sacramental 


Of this capital Enemy of Mankind the Gentiles them 
selves had, sosnehow or other, received an obscure tradi 
tion; plentifully, indeed, contaminated with fable ; which 
they still further polluted with new-invented Superstitions. 
Yet these still preserving a few traces of resemblance to 
the Mosaic History, and occasioning some conformity 
between the languages of error and revelation, have drawn 
unwary men into some dangerous conclusions, as if the 
Founders of our holy Religion had taken advantage of 
Pagan follies to form a system of DKMOXOLOGY, agree 
able to the preconceived fancies of their CONVERTS. 
But of this, more" in its place. The present occasion 
rather leads us to admire the Art by which the Sacred 
Writer has conducted his argument. 

P. 319. [K.] It should seem most probable that the 
miraculous powers were, in general, occasional and tem 
porary. But a learned Writer, who has declared him 
self of this opinion, hath unwarily put the gif t of * tongues 
into the number 

" The Gift of Tongues upon the day of Pentecost 
" (says he) was not lasting, but instantaneous and 
" transitory ; not bestowed upon them for the con- 
<c stant work of the Ministry, but as an occasional si<^n 
" only, that a person endowed uith it was a chosen 
" minister of the Gospel: which sign, as soon as it had 
" served that particular purpose, seems to have ceased, 
" and totally to have vanished*." 

Would reason, or the truth of tilings, suffer us to be 
thus compliant, we might concede to Unbelievers all \\ hich 
they fancy the Learned Writer hath procured for them, 
" that the power of tongues was temporary, and like the 
" power of healing, possessed occasionally," without 
being alarmed at any consequence they will be able to 
deduce from it. For let it be granted, that the. gift of 
tongues returned as often as they had occasion for its 
use, and it is no great matter where, it resided in the 

* Dr. Middleton s Essay on the Gift of Tongues, Vol II. of hia 
AVorks, p. 79. 

c c 3 But 


But neither reason, nor the truth of tilings, will suffer 
ns U> be thus complaisant. The power of healing the 
diseased (to \vliich Dr. M. compares the gi/i of tongues) 
is, during the whole course of its operation^ one con 
tinued arrest or diversion of the general la-ws of matter 
and motion ; it was therefore very fitting that this power 
should be imparted occasionally. But the // of tongues; 
when once it was conferred, became, from thenceforth, a 
natural power; just as the free and perfect use of the 
members of the Body, after they had been restored, by 
miracle, to the exercise of their natural functions. Indeed, 
the loss of this gift of tongues, alter the temporary use of 
it, would imply other miracles, as oft as there was occa 
sion to restore what was lo^t by actual deprivation.. 
Unless we can suppose that the Apostles, in the exercise 
of this gilt, were merely ii rational organs, Automate, 
through- which certain soands were conveyed. In 
word, it was as much in the corpse of nature for art 
Apostle, when the holy Spirit- on the Day of Pentecost 
had enabled him to speak a strange language, ever after 
wards to- have the use eftHftfr language; as- it was for the/ 
Cripple, whom Jesus had restored to the use of his 
limbs on the sabbath day, ever afterwards to walk, to- 
run, and perform all the functions of a man perfectly 
sound and entire. 

In one thing, indeed, the power of healing- the diseased, 
$nicl of speaking with strange tongues, agreed 1 . As the 
Disciples could not heal at all times, and when they 
would ; so- neither could they speak when- they we^ld, in 
an unknown tongue, when it was first essayed 1 . Yet 
when the holv Spirit had once enabled them to speak and 
understand a Language till then unknown to them, 
I conceive they must retain the use -of it with the same 
facility as- if they had acquired it in the ordinary way of 

But the confusion in this matter, and the embarras 
which follows it, in the Doctor s stating the -Question,, 
arise from not distinguishing between the active pwctr 
.and the ftosmc gift- In healing the diseased, the Apostles 
a be considered as .the f$ r urlws of a Miracle \ in 


speaking a strange tongue, as Subjects of a miracle per 

P. 33.5. [L.] The serious Reader will be ready to 
ask, what learned discoveries they are which have encou 
raged these men to innovate from the common opinion 
concerning the Gospel Demoniacs? Have they found 
in the Scripture history of the Depioniacs any thing 
either hurtful to morals, or false in Physics f Nothing 
of either. And yet whatever is found there, they are 
not the tinders. 

An excellent Divine of the last age had, in his exten 
sive researches into antiquity, collected, that both Jews 
and Gentiles, at and before the time of Christ^ were in 
fected with one common Superstition, that Demons and 
\hzSmilsofwickedftien deceased frequently seized upon 
the bodies of the livhig, and tormented them in various 
ways. Hence he too hastily, yet with his usual modesty, 
insinuated, that the Possessions recorded in the Gospel, 
and called demoniacal* might be of that imaginary sort; 
and no Gth^r in reality than OCCULT DISEASES; which 
being intractable by the art of medicine, were supposed 
to be supernatural (as if a good Physician was a match 
for any thing but the Devil). To the unhappy wretches"^ 
so afflicted, he supposed that Jesus might apply his salu 
tary hands : and that to this malady, so relieved, the Peo 
ple gave the fashionable name by which, at that time, it 
was commonly distinguished. 

Without doubt this trulv learned Divine went the more 
readily into this bold opinion, as he had observed it to 
have been God s gracious method, in the course of his 
DISPENSATIONS, to take advantage of men s habitual 
prejudice*, towards the support of his Revelation, by 
keeping his servants attached to his Ordinances. 

I kit, here, the excellent person should have distin 
guished (as his Followers \ were not likely to do it for 

* lie who would see a more complete account of this whole affair 
mill its dependencies, is recommended to the FIRST BOOK of the 
Doctrine of Grace, or the Office ami Operation of the LLdj Spirit y 
3d Edition, Loud. 1763. [See vol. viii. of this Edit.] 

f Dr. Sykes Dr. Larduer, c. &c. 

c c 4 him) 


him) between RITE^ and DOCTRINES. As they were 
Rrnis only, of which God was pleased to avail himself, 
for the benefit of his People, in order to combat, or ta* 
elude, tlieir fondness fur Pagan usages. -In matters of 
DocTiiiXK, the like caiipli.ince was not, nor could be, 
safely indulged to them, without violating the truth of 
things ; and therefore Sacred Scripture affords us no ex 
ample of such a condescension. In things pertaining only 
to Rites we have, indeed, many instances. Tims the use 
of linen-garmenfs, lighted lamps, I as I rations, and a muU 
titudc of other usages, in themselves indifferent* were 
brought out of Jake Religions into the true: and this, 
with high propriety and wisdom, while their new destina 
tion sanctified their use ; and their use served to the 
easier introduction of the new establishment. Hut to 
assert and support a groundless, superstitious opinion 
(if such it were) of Diabolical possessions, would be the 
infecting and contamitr.itiiig the Christian Faith. 

However, if the admirable Author of this hurtful 
Novelty did himself miss of so jiibt and obvious a dis 
tinction, we have less reason to wonder that those of his 
Followers, who only aimed at something, by a taint re- 
ilcction from the other s learning, should not hit (as we- 
ha^ve said) upon what their Master had overlooked. 

A kite eminent Physician, who hath borrowed this 
notion professedly from this great man, acted a more, 
modest and becoming part. He might pretend, by virtue 
of his Profession, and still inore by his superior skill in 
it, to a profounder insight into Nature: At the same 
time, Theology being in another department, he was the. 
more excusable, if he did not see all that this Divine 
Science opposed to the Opinion; an Opinion, which 
might be said to descend to him, by inheritance from his 
great namesake and relation: whose conciseness, strength, 
and modesty of reasoning, he hath so well copied, that to- 
confute objections so borrowed, will be to overthrow, the 
>* hole System of the Ant ukmoniac Party * 


* " Ut redeam autcm ad Drcmoniacos ; non raea est, profecto, sed 
aliorum ante me pi elate & dectrinu preaityritium virorum sententia. 
quuori hie propouo. lit proximo quideai i2uculo,inLt;f iiostrates etiam 



In his Medica Sacra, he hath a chapter dedcemcmacis 1 ; 
in which he hath treated tk: Evangelic History with all 
that decency and reverence which becomes a true Scholar 
and a serious -Pro-lessor of the Christian Faith. 

The tirst observation I shall make, in the entrance OH 
his argument, is general; and will serve to confute all 
who have written on the .Question. It is this Our An^ 
tidemoniasts reason upon the case, not as they find it 
recorded by the J&wangelistS) but as they see it described 
only in a treatise of Medicine, by Aretaeus,- Fernelius, or 
any other of the faculty, where it stands unconnected 
with all moral as well as religious inquiries. But it hatU 
been shewn at large, that these demoniacal possessions 
have a close relation to the Doctrine of REDEMPTION ; 
and were therefore reasonably to be expected at the first 
promulgation of the GOSPEL. Ihis sets the matter on 
quite another footing : and that plausible reasoning, which 
attends the learned person s representation, entirely dis* 
appears, when we put the case as it was in fact. 

i. This proper precaution, against so defective and 
foreign a representation of the case, being premised, 
I now proceed to the reasoning employed by our learned 
Physician to discredit the common Opinion of a real. 

His first argument stands on the extent of the Super 
stition, which gave birth to so many imaginary posses 

" * It had not only infected the Mosaic Religion in par- 
" ticular, but had overrun paganism in general." u As 
" to the Jews, who were wont to ascribe whatever there 
"was of prodigious in nature, to the MINISTRY OF 
" ANGELS, they were easily brought to believe, that 
(t those dire diseases, vUiich infected the Mind and 

" Body 

JOREPIIUS MF.ADUS, Theolcgns, rerum sacrarum cognitione, nulli 
Ssecimdus, luculenta dissbrtatione cam propujjrmbit. Cwn ex 

igitur ac ilte, jamllla sim oriundus," c. Praef. in. Med. Sa,cr. p.ix. 

* At non Judim tan turn, sed et aliis etiam gentibus in usu fu t inr- 
sanos pro demoniacis habere, p. 76. A Chald:cis quidem ad PIii;ni- 
ces, postea ad Egyptios propagata, ad Gn^cos deinde, hinc ad Ji./ni i- 
os aliasq^e demum geutes teniporis pro^r essu Uemoniara is a He- 
ligio pervenit. p. 74. 


" Body equally and at once, and whose causes were 
" unknown, could be no other than the work of the 

Let us allow all this Let us allow that the Jews, at the 
time of Christ, were very superstitious in this matter. But 
then the learned Doctor, in his turn, will allow, that the 
Teachers of the Gospel, in the fulness of their inspiration, 
must needs be secure from an error, which so dreadfully 
affected the Religion they were intrusted to propagate, as 
Demonianism did, if it wore an error. And if so, they 
knowingly and designedly gave it countenance and sup 
port. But how that will agree with their character and 
office, we shall see, as we go along. 

Our Learned Doctor tells us further, " that the Jews 
not only gave credit to the works of the Devil, but 
believed in the ministry of A NO ELS likewise."- -This seems 
to be one of those slips of the pen, to which Truth some 
times betrays those who write most cautiously against her ; 
especially when they act the part of Believers; which, 
however, I will not suspect was the case here. For the 
Old Testament, which the learned Doctor reverences 
equally with the Neic, bears ample testimony to the real 
ministry of Angels ; and with such circumstances attending 
it, as will not permit a Believing Caviller to evade it, by 
having recourse to vision, Jigure, or accommodation. For 
jf the Angel who waylaid Balaam may be reduced to a 
dusky dream, those whom Abraham entertained in Broad 
daylight were more substantial. When, therefore, the 
learned Person puts the ministry and malice of good and 
bad angels on the same footing, he must confess that, if 
the reality of the former be proved, the reality of the 
latter will follow. 

As to the abounding Superstition, in this matter, both 
amongst Jew^and Gentiles, I do not see how that, in the 
least, alters the case. The Jews, of this time, by a more 
enlarged and unrestrained Commerce with their Pagan 

* Juda i an tern, siquid faceret Natura, ad ANGET.OIIUM supremi 
J)ci Mi/lint ronirn operani referri soliti, facile in animuin sibi inducere. 
poterunt, ut chras quasdam crederent regriliulines qua? mcntem simul 
ct corpus Ift-derent, ,-t quiirum rnusite coguo&cere ziequirt Ut, ab angelo- 
rum nialonim y^y.aif exuiia. p. 74. 


Notes.! 01* MOSES DEMONSTRATED. 395 

iieighbours, had defiled the purity of their holy Religion 
by many opinions borrowed from the Gentile Philoso-* 
Alters. Thus they took, we may well suppose, the Doctrine 
of I Demons from PLATO, and the pre-existcnce (if not a 
future state) from PYTHAGORAS. Notwithstanding, it 
is certain, that both Demoniacal "possessions and future 
r war ds and punishments are equally supported by the. 
acts and doctrine of Jesus and his Disciples. 

This- too, let me observe The Doctrines of the FALL 
and of the REDEMPTION (the two principles on which 
our holy religion rises) are interwoven into the substance, 
of the Christian Faith. If therefore we can suppose 
Detnonkirtism to be only a threadbare fable, new-dressed > 
and oftered, by way of accommodation, to amuse the 
followers of the Gospd, I cannot see what hinders our 
supposing, with SVNESIUS, ajuture state itself to be no- 

Both Opinions had the advantage of old prejudice? 
in their favour. Yet if only one of them were true, 
(namely, that of & Jut lire state), and the other of Demo- 
mant&m, taught but by way of accommodation, we see, ifc 
could hold its ground no otherwise than from the difficulty 
of erasing it from the popular belief: yet so uncomfort 
able a doctrine, one should think, might be removed with 
very little trouble. 

Nay, Jeus was even invited to help forward, as it were,, 
its discredit, had it been only a delusion. A Father*" 
mistook his Son s disorder to be LUNACY, when, accord 
ing to the Historian, it was a DIABOLIC POSSESSION". 
And as such, Jesus treats it. He rebukes the DEVIL, 
v//0 departed out of the Child, and he was cured from 
that very /war. And to prevent all mistake in this 
matter, when the Father had told Jesus that his Disciples 
could not cure the Child, our Lord, .after upbraiding his 
followers for their leant of fait h> tells them, however,, 
that tliis miracle tot dispossession^ the most difficult of all, 
Enquired a move extraordinary preparation for the work, 
than any other, by acts of piety and humiliation. For 
which assertion an obvious reason may be assigned, this 
victory over Satan being a certain mark, that the Redemp* 

xvii, 15. 


tion was completed and accomplished, this evidence of 
it was fitly reserved to be bestowed on the mo;-? peri- ct 
of the followers of Christ. Yet had the Satanic part 
been only a popular fancy, Jesu- ;, i ue~ 

cried it with advantage, while he had the Father of the 
sufferer on his side; who considered his Son s disease as 
a Lunacy only. 

It may be said, perhaps, [hat the Doctrines of a -future 
state, and that of Demoniacal p(jsse&--,wns y which I put 
upon the same footing of Credibility (because the Gospel 
Lath so put them), differ in this, ,that.a t /)t /we: state may 
be proved by natural rtt$^ y &hichtDeniwuacalp6$s&$$iotit 
cannot. But what doth this objection infer more thsm 
this ? that a Juture .stale makes part of NATURAL 
HELJGION; and Demoniacal possessions ^ a part of ttiQ 

2. The ingenuous Discourser brings another objection 
to these pes#es$ wM Having collected together all the 
SYMPTOMS of this disorder, from Matthew, Mark, and 
Luke, he concludes thus " All these are tbeSyffiptom} 
" of a natural disorder. r \ Ijey are more surprising, 
" indeed, than thoeeof other disorders, yet nothing super- 
* e natural*." Hislearned Fellow Collegiate, Dr., 7. Frtind, 
treating the- same subject, alter he hath given us, from 
JEtius and Oribasius, a description of the ma dness 
called Lyeanthropif, of which, one of the most strik 
ing SYMPTOMS was a fondness to wander wndngst* ttt 
Sepulchres of the dead, adds the Demoniac in the 
Script urex, who was POSSESSED WITH A LTKE SORT 
OF MADNESS, is represented as hfrciitg his dw cUing 
amongst the Tomb,r\: 

The opinion of these two learned Naturalists is founded, 
\ve see, in this circumstance " that the Symptoim of a 
* c demoniacal possession are the same with "those of some 
" natural disorders." 

* Insanprum sunt ba^c omnia ; utnsm vero a Daemoniis, an vi 
rnorhi provenerint, disceplatnr neqt -CM^ninj alius qiiisqtiain inter om- 
nes, qui huii .anijm genus infestant, morbub tarn naturae vim excedcre 
\idetur. p. 66. 

f Hist, of Physic, Part I. pp. 1621. 



mti>Gt no Vj it evil spirits were permitted to disturb 
the vitul functions of the human frame, whether in 
the solids, th-3 ir.iids, or in both together; can we have 
any conception how this co^H be effected -without 
TI-T or occasioning, in 3Up&UfitUflal disorder*) the very 
same SYMPTOMS which accompany n-itural maladies? 
These Symptoms, in both cases, must arise from the dis 
turbance of the material Frame, and can arise no other 
wise; an I tho/e disturbances, whether produced by a 
spiritual Agent, or by material causes, must produce the 
sa-ne sensible effects. Madness, for instance, whether 
occasioned by the malignity of an intelligent Agent ab 
extra, or by discordant honours ab infra, will be .still 
madness, -A^ accompanied with the same Symptoms. That 
appearance, therefore, which must accompany a Demo 
niacal possession, IF RKAL, can never by any rules of logic 
be converted into a reasonable argument for the falsehood 
of such a possession. 

It is worth observation, that one of the Evangelists 
being a Physician, our learned Critic, by a very becoming 
partiality, prefers him to the rest. t: LUKE (Le tells us) 
being superior to them for the purity and accuracy of 
his expression, when there is occasion to speak of distem 
pers, or of the cure of them ; and is more particular in 
reciting alt the miracles of our Saviour in relation to 
healing, than the other Evangelists are*. 

All this is true ; and yet ^ t. Luke speaks the very same 
language with the rest concerning demoniacal possessions. 
Now if the Gospel Demoniacs were men only labouring 
under -natural disorders, a Physician, by his deeper insight 
into Nature, with the assistance of inspiration to boot, 
was very likely to have discovered the mistake ; and for 
the glory of his art as likely to have recorded ic : espe 
cially as the detection of it was the overturning a hurtful 
Superstition. And we know how ready these benevolent 
Gentlemen have ever been to detect VULGAR ERRORS. 
"Not to insist, at present, that St. Luke was guided, in so 
good a work, by a stronger passion than honour for his 
frojemon, as a Physician, that is, a love j or truth, as au 


* Ib. pp. 223 225, 



This, as we say, must have been the case in duzlrtti* 
possessions, wliere the Body only was thus supernaturaHy 
affected. Yet in those, where the mind alone, or equally 
xvith ttie body, suffered by these disorders, I confess, we 
might expect some extraordinary marks or symptoms of 
supernatural Agency, when it was for the purpose of the 
EVIL SPIRIT to display his Power. Here the immaterial 
principle wiihin us affords larger room, and more con 
veniences to be acted upon, by an exterior agent: although 
the irregular etlbrts of the mind itself are so wouderful as 
to be frequently mistaken for a foreign agency. 

Yet this notwithstanding, there are, in these mental 
disorders, powers exhibited, that can never be mistaken, 
by a careful observer, for its men. 

Some of which, are, in fact, recorded to have been 
exerted; in order, as it were, to confute learned 
men, who seem to think we ought to reject all diabolic 
possessions but such as are ascertained by Symptoms 

An instance of such we have in* the Dam-sd possessed 
tt ith the Spirit of DIVINATIOX, who brought her Master 
much gain by SOOTH SAYING. This Woman, Paul dis-r 
possessed, and so spoiled her Master s trade; who there 
upon raised a fierce persecution against the Apostle. 

The symptoms of Divbwtion and SoQths&yuig, that is, 
telling of things absent, and foretelling things future, were, 
certainly supernatural ; and, for such, must be acknow 
ledged by the Objectors; who I hope will not yet forget 
the Personages, they have assumed, of Believers : against 
\vhom only this reasoning on the Demoniacs is directed 
and addressed. 

Having now seen what these learned Wiiters have to 
oppose to my System of the Gospel- Demoniacs: 

i crave leave, in the next place, to bespeak their atten 
tion to what I have to urge against theirs. Enough hath 
been said to shew that this is no trifling or unimportant 



The untoward consequences being these, which un 
avoidably follow the Concession, that Jesus and his Dis- 

* ActS XVi. l6, & 28C[. 



ciples did only accommodate themselves to the fanciful and 
superstitious opinions of the times, in placing natural dis 
tempers in the visionary Class of Supernatural. 

i . Unbelievers may conclude (and by too many they 
will be supposed not to conclude amiss) that much ad 
vantage is hereby gained over the Evidences of our 
Faith. While it is believed, from the testimony of the 
Evangelists, that Jesus cast out DeviU, and healed suck 
as were possessed with them, that plausible subterfuge 
against his miraculous cures, which pretends that th* 
relief afforded * c 

* See Sermon On the Fall of Satan, (vol. x. of this Edit.) 
this Note. 

*3* The Reader will phase to observe, that to the fol* 
lowing INDEX, is subjoined an Alphabetical LIST of 
AVTHORS, fyc. quoted in The DIVINE LEGATION ; which 
quotations are not referred to in the Index. 

I 40i ] 





A BIM E LJ^CH, account of him vol. iv. p. 8$ 

Abraham, a brief historical view of the call of God to him and 

his family - - iii. 342 

. by some authors taken for Zoroaster - - iv. 366 

- supposed by M. Fourmont to be Cronon - iv. 438 

- the true meaning of the blessing pronounced on him, 

pointed out - v. 394 

exposition of the history of the command to sacrifice his 

son Isaac - vi. 3 24 

explanation of " Our Father Abraham wished to see my 

day" - - vi. 6 

- summary of his history - - vi. 10 

the import of God s revelation to him explained - vi. 14 

in what sense said by Christ to have seen his day, vi. 23.31 

reply to objections against the historical truth of his re 

lation - - vi. 30 

three distinct periods of his history pointed out - vi. 32 

an advocate for toleration - vi. 148 

summary of his history - - vi. 185 
Abraxas, (Egyptian Amulet) described - iv. 176 
Academics and Pyrrhonians, their principles compared, iii. 47 
Academies, Greek, their founders and various sects - ibid. 
on what principles erected - iii. 54 
Academy O/d and Peripatetics, their conformity - iii. 140 
Academy, Old and Nezv, thejr conformity - ii. 97 
Actions, signal instance of divine .instruction converted by 

them in the case of Abraham r r - vi. 3 

typical and significative distinguished - - vi.45 

their eloquence illustrated by an anecdote from the Spartaix 

history - ,- vi, 168 

and by another from the Roman history - vi. 169 
VOL. VI, J) D 

402 I N D E X T O 

Adoption, account of the practice of, in ancient and moderti 
times - - ii. QI 

Adoration, Prideaux s account of the ancient form of, iv. igq 
MmUianus, character of - - ii. 174 

JEtieas* exposition of the story of his descent into hell, ii. 7^ 
- enquiry into the nature of the poem of the JEneid, ibid. 
the image of a perfect lawgiver conveyed in him, ii. 85 
persoijiiiiy alludes to Augustus - - ii. qS 

description of his shield - ii. 160 

JEsculapiuSf observation on the ancient story and character 
of - - ii. 172 

Africans, deductions from their knowledge of a future state 
notwithstanding their barbarism - ii. 209 

Alc&us, why confounded with Hercules - - iv. 229 

Alexander the Great, the probable motive of his commu 
nicating to his mother the secrets of the myste 
ries - - ii. 26 
the stones of the exploits of Bacchus and Hercules in 
the Indies designed to aggrandize him - iv. 228 
Allegories, often imputed when never intended - - ii. 206 
< for what purpose introduced in the ancient Pagan 
ism - - iii. 289 
adopted by Christians in the interpretation of Scrip 
ture - - iii. 293 

controversial reflections on their nature with reference to 

Job, and the Ode of Horace, " O Navis referunt" v. 447 

religious, distinguished - vi. 48 

- argument deduced from the general passion for, vi. 101 

Alliance of Church and State, mutual inducements to enter 

irfto - - - ii. 272 

fundamental arl - - - - ii. 282 

Alphabets, origin or, accounted for - - iv. 131. 153 

political - ----- iv. 1 53 

sacred - - - - - - - - iv. 157 

reason for discrediting the notion of their invention by 

the Israelites- - iv. 162 

invention of, prior to the time of Moses - - ibid. 
Hebrew, formed by Moses from an improvement on the 
Egyptian - - iv. 163 

America, remarks on the religion of the Natives of, i. 304 
( is of, a good nursery for philosophers and free 

thinkers - ii. 331 

remarks on the language of - - iv. 413 

Amos, a clear description of a particular providence quoted 
from the book of - v. 137 

Anatomy, practised and studied by the ancient Egyp 
tians - - - iv. 103 
Ancients, enquiry into their opinions concerning the immor 
tality .of the soul - * - iii. 148 



Animal food, Sir Isaac Newton s opinion of the introduction 

of it into Egypt refuted - - iv. 267 

Animal worship, origin .of, accounted for - - - iii. 280 

true origin of, amongst the Egyptians - iv. 183 210 

images of animals first worshipped - - - iv. 186 

afterwards the animals themselves ,-.. - - iv. 188 
- various opinions of the ancients of its origin - iv. 103 

Amchariiis, St. anecdote of - - - 11.378 

Antoninus, Emperor, motives on which he was desirous of 

initiation in the Eicusinian mysteries - ii. 10 

observations on his reflections on the Christians, ii. 315 
his reflections on dv?atii\ - HH , - - iii. 104 
his notion of the human soul - ;-...-- - iii. 167 
Apis, the symbol of the Egyptian God Osiris ~ - iv. 18(3 
Apollo, explanation of those oracles of his v> hicli were quoted 

by Eusebius from Porphyry - - .*; - ii. 36 
ji polio Pythian, bis oracles paralleled with the prophecies of 

scripture, by Middleton - - vi. 54 

Dr. ]\] iddieton s opinion exposed - ibid. 

Apologue or Fable, its use in oratory - iv. 137 

its analogy to hieroglyphic writing - - ibid. 
its improvement and contraction in simile and meta 
phor - iv. 138 

its change to parable . - - - iv. 167 
Apotheosis, Civil, the origin of - i. 307 
when bestowed on deceased heroes among the Egyp 
tians - - iv.^2o8 

Apuldus, general intention of his metamorphosis - ii. 163 

his personal character - - .ii. 171 

enquiry into his prejudices against Christianity - ii. 1 74 

< his motives for defending Paganism and mysteries, ii. 179 

foundation of his allegory of the Golden Ass - ii. 181 

story of - - 11.182 

moral of his story - - ii. 10,6 
the corrupt state of the mysteries in his time - ii. 201 
Arbitrary will, Zeno the patron of - - 1.240 
Areopagus, practice of that court - - i. 149 
< remarks on the nature of that jurisdiction - - ii. 277 
conjectures on the first founding -of that court - ii. 320 
Argument internal, defined - - /- v. 156 
Aristophanes, review of the dispute between him and So 
crates - > - j. 156 

Aristotle, character of him and his philosophy - - iii. 100 

his opinion of the hum an soul - *,.. - 111.163 
his distinction between mind and intellect - .\. :-. -. ibid. 
Ark, the fatal effects of amongst the Philistines - v. 64 
Arthur, King, and William the Conqueror, the similar outlines 

of their characters - ; - x , ,- iv. 222 

D D 2 Article 


Article VII. of the Church of England, an exposition of, vi. 2 
directed against the Manichean error - ibid. 

Arts, the invento/s of, where placed in Elysium, by Vir 
gil - ii. 148 
Ass carries mysteries, origin of that proverb - ii. 101 
momy Jewish, observations on -r - v. 361 
Atheism, examination of Bayle s arguments for - i. 232 

an examination of Plutarch s account of the origin of, iii. 228 

Plutarch s parallel between it and superstition - iii. 230 

Lord Bacon s parallel between it and superstition, iii. 253 
Atheists, whether capable of distinguishing the moral dif 
ference of good and evil - i. 232 

whether deserving punishment from the hand of 

God - - - - - i. 255 

the effect of his principles on his conduct compared with 

the fatalist - - i. 269 

their moral conduct accounted for - - i. 270 

summary of their dispute with the divines - - i. 295 

their opinion of the human soul - iii. 148 
Athenians, the most religious people of Greece, ii. 6 13 
copy of their test oath - - - ii. 292 
law relating to the introduction of foreign worship, ii. 319 

- their behaviour in prosperity aRd adversity - - v. 340 
Atomic theory, a Greek invention - - iii. 1/7. 214 

Atossa, her invention of letters fabulous - - iv. 410 

Attributes Divine, examination of Lord Bolingbroke s no 
tions of - ii. 212 
Augury of Safety, Dion Cassius s account of - - iii. 380. 
Aurelius, Emperor, his opinion of the firmness of the Chris 
tians - - iv. 3& 
Austin, St. his ingenious definition of language and let 
ters - iv. 133 
Author, the proper objects of his writings - i. 171 
on the knowledge of old ones from the phrases they make 
use of - - - v. 310 

from the scenery introduced - - v. 311 


Bacchanalian Rites, origin of the impieties committed in 
them - ii. 62 

representation of their Vigils - - ii. 164 
Plutarch s account of their Vigils - - ii. 165 
the Romans in their edicts x against them careful not to 

violate the rights of toleration - ii. 32-3 

Bacchus, oath of the priestesses of - - - ii. 293 

his exploits in the Indies invented to aggrandize the glorjr 

of Alexander - * - iv. 228 



Bacchus, his identy confounded with Osiris - - iv. 233 

reusous for proving him to be Noah - - iv. 433 
Bacon, Lord Chancellor, examination of his parallel between 

atheism and superstition - iii. 253 

Balaam, his prophecy, Numb. xxiv. 17, expounded - iv. 172 

- observation on the story of his ass - - iv. 396 

iiis wish to die the death of the righteous explained, v. 398 
Banishment, how far a punishment for offences committed 

against society - i. 211 

Baptism, tbe importance of, established - v. 291 

Baucis and Philemon, whence that fable derived - iii. 66 
Bayle, his character as a writer *^ : - - i. 230 

examination of his arguments to prove Atheism not de 

structive to society j- - - i. 232 

bis reflections on toleration - v. 23 
Bembine Table, a description of it, contained in Ezekiel s 

visions - ;:*;, - iv. 296 

Bermet, secretary, bow brought into disgrace - - 1.157 
Bentlcy, the real existence of Zaleucus, and the authenticity 

of his remains defended against him - i. 324 

Bible, how differently represented by Freethinkers, i. 178 
summary view of - - - v. 175 

&ee Scriptures. 
Bolingbroke, Lord, vindication of divines from his charge of 

confederating with Atheists - - - i. 290 

examination of some of the principles of his first philoso 

phy - ii. 212 

Montesquieu s letter respecting him - - iii. 355 

his observation on the insufficiency of the Mosaic law to 

restrain the people, answered - v. 65 

consequences of a law upon his principles - - v. 67 

examination of his notion concerning the omission of the 

doctrine of a future state in the M osaic Dispensation, v. 202 
Bond, humorous anecdote of a forged one - iii. 191 

Brute-worship, its symbolical nature explained - iv. 185 

opinions of the ancients of the origin of it in Egypt, iv. 103 
Bryant, his opinion of the origin of human sacrifices ex 
ploded - - vi. 352 

Buffoenry, observation on the tendency of it, illustrated 
in the instances of Socrates and Lord Chancellor 
Hyde - - i. 156, 157 

Butler , ill effects resulting from his satire against fana 
ticism ----- .* - -1.156" 


Cadmus, whence he obtained his alphabet - iv 163 

Cesar, Julius, his disavowal of the belief of a future state, in 

thc.senate - iii. 41 

D D 3 Ccesar, 

4o5 I N D E X T O 

Cccsar, Julius, his account of the religion of ancieri 
Gaul - -.--.. i v . 429. 

of ancient Germany - - - - - iv. 432 
Caff, Gohkn, what divinity represented by it - - iv. 20,0 
Calves of Dan and Kethd, why the Jews were so invincibly 

attached to them - - - iv. 203 

why two of them erected by Jeroboam - iv. 297 
Canaanites, why ordered to be exterminated - - iv. 284 
Canadtam, remarks on their religion - i. 304 
Cardan, his argument to prove the doctrine of the immor 
tality of the soul destructive to society - i. 228 

Casaubon, his account of the translation of the Pagan mys 
teries into the Christian religion - - ii. 75 

Caio, mentioned in the MnQis, enquiry whether the Censor 
or of Utica - - ii. 163. 

his reply to Caesar s- disavowal of the belief of a future 

state, in the senate - - iii. 42 

Cavalry, the situations, proper and improper for the use 
of - - iv. 263 

Caylus, Count, his opinions relating to the Egyptian cha 
racters ------ . iv. 386 

CelsttSf his character compared with that of Origen, ii. 4. 

his remark on Plato s doctrine of a future state - iii. 07 
Cerberus, in the JEneis,. explained - - ii. 123 
Ceres, Eleusinian, her temple described - - ii. 157 

her story - - - ii. 159 
Vervantes, ill consequence resulting from his satire against 

Knight Errantry - - i. 155 

Chaos, a description of, from Berosirs - - ii. 116 

Char/evoix, F. his sentiments rsepecting the civilization of the 

North American Indians - - - - ii. 389 
Charon, exposition of the character of, in the JEneis, ii. 122 
Cheops king of Egypt, how he raised money for the erection 

of his pyramids explained - - - - iv. 434 
Children, the punishment of, for the crimes of their parents, 

on what principle only to be vindicated - - iv. 20 
Chinese language, an improvement of the ancient Egyptian 

hieroglyphics - - iv. 123 

Improvement of, to its present state - - iv. 124 

its opposite progress from that of the Egyptian hierogly- 

phical writing; to what owing - iv. 127 

to what the different accounts we have received of it is 

owing - - - - - - - iv. 128 

account of, by M. Freret ----- ibid. 

^ by P. Parennin - - iv. 129 

by M. Gaubil - - - - - - ibid. 

by P. Magaillans - - - - - iv. 130 
- wliy not further improved - - - - iv. 133 

hierogly phical marks not for words but things - iv. 144 




Chinese langit&ge, Du Hulde s observations on - - iv. 174 

the reverence of % the natives for their ancient cha 

racters - - - iv. 179 

the ancient characters of, greatly venerated by the na 

tives - iv. 303 

Chinese printing, Voltaire s account of - - iv. 389 

Christ, remarks on the use he made of his twofold credentials, 

scripture and miracles - - - - - vi. 9 

made no use of traditions - *-- - ibid. 

important argument drawn from his conversation with 

two disciples in their journey to Euamaus alter his 

resurrection - - vi. 39 

-^- an exposition of his prophecy of his first and second 

coming - - - - - - - vi. 6e 

the use to be made of miracles and prophecies in proof of 

his being the Messiah - vi. 205 

the light in which he was held by Pilate - - vi. 215 
redemption by, had a retrospect from the fall - vi. 268 

an act of grace, not of debt - - vi. 269 
- the means employed in that great work enquired 

into * - vi. 271 

his sacrifice on the cross considered - vi. 287 

the Socinians opinion of the death of Christ exa 

mined - - - - - - . -.-rvi. 300 

his account of the last judgment examined - .-. vi. 313 

the miracle of his resurrection considered - - vi. 326 

his miracles of casting out devils or evil spirits, con 

sidered - - - - ; - vi. 329 

his miracles of healing natural diseases considered, vi. 331 

his temptation considered" - -; vi. 332 
Christian religion, how esteemed by the ancient Pagans, ii. 175 

how the evils of persecution arose in it - ii. 310 
- first received with complacency by the Pagans - ii. 312 

first incurred hatred by claiming to be the only true re 

ligion - V > .r. .- - ii. 313 

occasion of its being persecuted - - ii. 314 

character of by Tacitus t , s - >- ii. 315 

persecuted both by good and bad princes - - ii. 379 

the views and consequences of bringing in Pagan anti 

quity to assist in defending it - - - - iii. 210 

their nocturnal assemblies vindicated from the misrepre- 

. sentations of Dr. Taylor,, chancellor of Lincoln, iv. 36 

first occasion of the nocturnal assemblies of Christians, iv. 40 
Pliny s doubts of the manner of proceeding against 

Christians - iv. 45 

* an enquiry into the methods taken by Providence to 

propagate it - - iv. 314 

the ignorance of the propagators, the means of advancing 

it - s: - r - - iv. 315 

D D 4 Christian 

4o3 INDEX TOf 

Christian religion, its doctrine shadowed under the rites of 
the Mosaic law - - - v. 205 

its evidences why not at all disclosed by Providence, vi. 40 

and Judaism inseparable - - vi. 41 

the ultimate end of Judaism - vi. 50 

its nature and genius explained - - vi. 213 
Chronology, Egyptian, a mistake of Sir Isaac Newton illus 
trated by a case stated in similar circumstances, iv. 222 

Church, its inducements for accepting an alliance with the 
state - - - ii. 278 

what it receives from the state - - ii. 283 

what it communicates to the state - . - ii. 285 
Cicero, his opinion of the end of the law - i. 342 

his exposition of the Pagan theology - - ii. 29 

his testimony in favour of the Eleusinian mysteries, ii. 57 

his reply to Caesar s disavowment of a belief of a future 

state, in the senate - - iii. 42 

his opinion of academies - - jii. 49 

his remark on the Phaedo of Plato - iii. 90- 

the difficulties in coming to the knowledge of his real 

sentiments of a future state of rewards and punish 
ments - - - iii. 106 

the various characters he sustained in his life and writ 

ings - - iii. in 

where his true sentiments are to be expected - iii. 114 

his idea of the human soul - iii. 115 

his opinion of the obligation of an oath, under the belief 

of the immutability or the divine nature - - iii. 128 

his account of the first advancer of the notion of 

TO EV - - iii. 179 

accused by Lactantius of duplicity - iii. 360 

remarks on Middleton s Life of - - iii. 376 

his account of the origin of brute worship contro 

verted - - - iv. 194 

Circumcision, a patriarchal institution - iv. 303 

why appointed - - iv. 330 

when first enjoined - - vi. 13 
Citizen, how man cuglrt to be educated to make a good 

one - - ii. 333 

Claim of right andfreegift, the difference - vi. 269 

Clemens Atexandrinus, his account of a remarkable symbolical 

message sent to Darius - - iv. 136 

his account of the Egyptian characters and writing corn- 

pared with that of Porphyry - iv. 141 

Chrc le, his notions of the Pythagorean metempsychosis 

proved erroneous - - - iii. 81 

- his opinion of the theocratic government of the Jews 

confuted - - - v. 85 

Clergy, abused by the Freethinkers - - i. 160 



Clergy, the abuse of, an insult upon civil society - . 165 
the abuse of, an evidence of a weak cause - 

vindicated against Lord Bolingbroke - 

their hard luck amongst modern Freethinkers 


Collins, his ill treatment of his friend Locke - - . 162 

inconsistencies in his writings - 

the validity of his assertions, that new religions are always 

grafted on old ones, &c. examined into - ~ y. 38 

characterised as a writer ----- vi. 46 

an examination of his discourse on the Grounds and 

Reasons of the Christian Religion - - ibid. 

his observations on the allegorical writings of the an 

cients - - vi. 94 

these observations shewn to refute his objections against 
Christianity - - - vi. 96 

Comets, their theory known by the ancient Egyptians, iii. 175 
Commentators on scripture, points recommended to their at 
tention - - v. 413 
Condamine, his remarks on the Indians of America - ii. 331 
Controversy, the arts of Freethinkers in - - i. 146 

the mischief arising from carrying it on under assumed 

characters - ~ - - i. 172 

when this practice may be justifiable - - - i. 173 
Cretans, celebrate their mysteries openly - - ii. 52 

boast of Jupiter and other gods being born amongst 

them - ..-,- ibid. 

? the custom of adopting youth among - - - ii. 91 
Critias of Athens, some account of, and a translatiou of his 

Iambics - iii. 219 

Crocodile^ why worshipped by the Egyptians - - iv. 186 
Cromwell, his character contrasted with those of his associates, 

Fleetwood, Lambert, and Vane - iii. 263 

Cudworth, his testimony as to the ancient opinion of the soul s 

immortality - ... iii. 153 

corrected as to his observation on Plutarch - < Tii. 169 
* the history of his Intellectual System - - - iv. 31 
Cupid and Psyche, exposition of the fable of - - ii. 20* 
Custom, remarkable instance from antiquity, of its power to 

erase the strongest impressions of nature - - i. 25$ 
Customs, a" similarity of, observable among distant nations, 

no argument of an actual communication betweea 

them - - iv. 385 

* traductive, an enquiry into " - iv. 363 


Dacier, his notion of the Pythagorean metempsychosit 

erroneous - - iii. Si 

Darius f Cyrus s dream respecting him ~ - - iv. 182 



Dark sayings, what that expression imports in scripture, iv. 168 
David, why appointed to succeed Saul - - iv. 311 

his title cf man after God s own heart explained - ibid, 
-the chronology of facts relating to his introduction to 

Saul rectified . _ - \\. 447 

Dead men, origin of the worship of, traced - iii. 2<5q 

Death, citations from the Stoics, shewing their notion s 

concerning it _ jij. 303 

Debtors, ancient and modern treatment of, compared, ii. 121 

funeral rights denied to the ancient; whilst the modern 

are buried alive - - _ - ii. 121 

Dedication, of the second edition of Books I. IT. II F. of the 

Divine Legation, to the Earl of Hardwicke - i. 137 
to the Freethinkers - i. 141 

of Books IV. V. VI. to Lord Mansfield - - iv i 

of Books IV. V. VI. to the Jews - iv. 13 
Dedications, absurdity of addressing them unsuitably, i. 141 
Deification, when bestowed on any hero of the Egyp- 

tians - - iv. 204 

Deities, Pagan, whence derived - iii. 284 

form of the ancient statues of, accounted for - iii. 285 

their spurious offspring accounted for - - iv. 251 

local and tutelary, their worship always maintained even by 

sojourners and conquerors - v. 49 

Democritus and Epicurus, their doctrine of matter com 
pared - - - iii. 383 
Demoniacs, the miracles of casting out devils or evil spirits 
considered - - vi. 329 

various opinions concerning them examined - vi. 301 
Demons, whence the doctrine of the Pythagoreans and JPia- 

tonists so full of - - iii. 142 

Apuleius s account of - iii. 143 
Des Cartes, not the inventor of the atomic philoso 
phy - - - iii. 177. 214 

Devoted, the command that. none devoted shall be redeemed, 
examined - - - - - - - vi. 362 

Dlagoras, consequence of his revealing the Orpheic and 
Eleusinian mysteries - ii. 50 

Dido, remarks on her character in the ^Eneis - - ii. 87 

Dionysius Halicarnassus, his distinction between established 
and tolerated religions among the ancients - ii. 324 

Drama, its obligation to conform to nature in the delineation 
of characters - - iii. 395 

Dramatic writing, remarks on, with reference to the book of 
Job - v. 303 308 

Dreams, Artemidorus s division of, into speculative and alle 
gorical - - - - - iv. 180 

superstitions interpretation of - + ibid, 

~- grounds of this species of divination - - - iv. 181 
4 Earthquakes, 



Earthquakes, said by Pythagoras to be occasioned by a synod 
ot.ghosm - - " - - - - 111,38 

predicted by the taste of well water - ibid 

on the predicting of - in. 36*2 
Egypt, the mysteries first instituted there - - ii. 70 

by whom carried abroad - - - - - ii. 73 

a religions war in, and the occasion cf it - - ii. 304 

original of animal worship in - ii, 306 
the piace whence the Grecian legislators^ naturalists, and 

philosophers, derived their knowledge - hi, 32 

an enquiry into the state of the learning and superstitioa 

of, in the time of Moses - - iv. 79 

why entitled to priority among civilized nations - iv. 86> 

scripture account of - - iv. 87 

the antiquity and power of, as delivered in the Grecian 

writers, confirmed by scripture - - iv. 89 

civil arts of - iv. 95 

a critical enquiry into the military usages of, at the tnne 

of the Trojan war - - - - - iy. 258 

abounding in horses before the conquest of Libya, iv. 259 
- why the Israelites were prohibited, carrying horses 

from - - - - - - iv. 261 

the laws of Moses why accommodated to the prejudices of 

the Jews, in favour of - - - , . - , iv. 2oc$ 

the ancient school of legislation - - iv, 354 
fundamental maxims in the religious policy of - iv. 355 

hereditary despotism preferred there - ibid. 
- the government not rendered despotic by Joseph, iv. 373 
Egyptian characters^irditT and Count Caylus, their opinions 

concerning ------ iv. 147. 386 

Egyptian heroes, the reason why the later obtained the names 

oi their earlier gods, explained - iv. 223 

Egyptian hieroglyphics^ how they came to be, and to conceal 

their learning - v.V- - - iv. 140 

curiological and tropical - ".._- -,,.. - iv. 145 

symbolic - - iv. 148 

their change of their style effected by this latter application 

of them ,: - ;, - ibid* 

Egyptian husbandry, anecdote of - i. iSa 

Egyptian idolatry, described in EzekieFs visions - iv. 20,4 
Egyptian learning, that mentioned in scripture, and that men 
tioned in a corresponding manner by the Greek writers, 
the same - iv. $4 

no distinct division of the sciences in - - iv. 104 
how preserved from the knowledge of the people by me 

priests - - - - - - - - iv. joc> 

summary of .. - - v ~ ~ * - iv. 178 

4t iNbfiX TO 

Egyptian physicians, confined to distinct branches of the 
medical art - - i v . 0,5 

their preventive method of practice - - i\. or> 

their number accounted for - - 97 

confined to distinct branches of the medical art, ivvibi- 

proved to compose an order of the priesthood - iv. 104 
Egyptian priest hood, account of, from Diodorus Siculus, iv. 90 

confirmed by Moses - - iv. gi 

their rites - - - iv. 94 
Egyptian writing, the four kinds of - iv. 141 
Egyptians, a people most celebrated for the cultivation of 

religion - - - i. 302 

- celebrated for religion in the most early times ; their priests 
also their judges and magistrates - - iii. 29 

- examination into the degree of their scientific know 
ledge - - iii. 175 

in what their wisdom more especially consisted - iii. 177 

among the first who taught the immortality of the 

soul - - iii. 184 

why subject to incurable diseases * - iv. qg 
their funeral rites - - iv. 113 

their sacred dialect - - iv. 165 
-origin of animal worship among - - - iv. 183 

worshippers of plants - - iv. 184 

of chimerical beings - - - - iv. 185 
- local animal deities, among - - ibid. 

their charge against the Grecians of stealing their gods; 

with their mutual recriminations - - iv. 250 

JZleusinian mysteries, the general purpose of their institu 
tion - - - ii. 7 

requisites for initiation into them ii. Q 

initiation into, deemed as necessary among the Pagans, as 

baptism among Christians - - - - ii. 13 

why kept secret - - ii. 14 

the greater and the less - - ii. 16 

enquiry into the doctrines taught in the greater - ii. 17 

negatively - ii. 18 
positively - ii. 20 

why aspired to, by considerable personages - - ii. 24 
a detection of Polytheism - - ibid. 
why the unity of deity concealed in them - - ii. 25 

the history narrated in them, what - - ii. 44 
the hymn sung at - ii. 45 

how they became corrupted - ii. 591 

why abused by the Fathers - - - ii. 66* 

under the inspection of the civil magistrate - ii. 67 

transferred intp the Christian religion - - ii. 69 

of the Egyptians and Grecians., the same - - ii 70 

where invented - - - - - - - ii. 72 



Eleusinian mysteries, by whom - - - * ii. 74 
- offices in the celebration of - ibid. 

taught a future state of rewards and punishments, ii. 7? 
--- initiation into, represented by poets allegorically, by de 
scent into Hell -r - ii. 96 

r initiation into, compared with death - ; -*. ^ - ii. 152 
.- alluded to by Solomon in Ecclus. ch. iv. 17, 18 - ii. 153 

the celebration of, a drama of the history of Ceres, ii. 158 
-* the riles of, contained in the Golden .Ass of Apu- 

leius - r . f ii. 191 

T magic rites in the corrupt state of - ii. 201 

Elias, the sense in which he was predicted to come before 

the day of the Messiah ascertained - vi. 78 

JZIihiit why distinguished from the other friends of Job, v. 362 

his character - * v. 366 
Elijah) the difference of the account of his translation and 

Enoch s accounted for - >. - . - v. 162 

JZlisha, exposition of the adventure between him and 

Joash - - vi. 193 

Eloquence, denned by Milton - iv. i 

Elysium, the description of in Virgil, preferred to that in 

Homer - ii. 146 

the several stations allotted to the happy by Virgil, ii. 347 
Embalming, the Egyptian method of - - iv. 101. 113 

this operation performed by the physicians, and the 

reason -r r - iv. 103 

the antiquity of the general practice of, proved - iv. 114 
Enigmas, required in the nature of God s dispensation to the 

Jews - r - - iv. 168 

Enoch) the difference between the account of his translation 

and that of Elijah accounted for - v. 163 

Enthusiasm and fraud, the union of accounted for - iii. 261 
Epic poetry, Homer, Virgil, and Milton, the triumvirate 

of - ii. 95 

Epictetus, his notion of death - iii. 103 

Epicurus, his doctrine of matter compared with that of De- 
mocrittis r r iii. 380 

Epistolic writing, account of the origin of - iv. 153 

Error, ridicule the proper means of detecting - i. 186 

Essential differences, Aristotle the patron of i. 240 

Establishments in religion, advantages of iv. 7 

Eucharistical sacrifice, origin and nature of, explained, vi. 275 
Euhemerus, how subjected to the imputation of Atheism, ii. 51 
examination of his conduct in disclosing the secrets of the 

mysteries - - iii. 287 

Evander, observation on Virgil s account of his court, ii. 89 
Eve, the creation of enquired into - - vi. 236 

fivremoud, St. examination of his remarks on the characters 

in the /Ejaeis - - :,i: - ii. 85 



$xo$zs, ill. 14, and vi. 3, expounded - - iv. 286 

J&xpiatoiy sacrijice, origin and nature of it explained, vi. 276 

Jtizekie/, and Jeremiah, the actions recorded to be performed 
by .them to illustrate their prophecies accounted For, iv. 1 33 

his famous visions, chap. 8, relating to the Jewish idolatry 
expounded - - iv. 204 

- God s reproaches to the Jews for their perverseness and 
disobedience, delivered by him - iv. 331 

the celebrated prophecy in his soth chapter ex 
plained - - iv. 336 

his representation of the Jewish idolatry - v. 56. 60 

quotations from, in confirmation of a particular provi 

dence - v. 137 

a passage in, predictire of the new dispensation - ?. 165 
his vision of the dry bones explained - v. 381 
Ezra, his writings pointed out - v. 370 
supposed to be the writer of the book of Job - ibid, 
also the books of Chronicles and Esther - - ibid. 
by tradition among the Jews, the same person as Ma- 

iachi -------- ibid. 

enquiry who hevwas - - vi. 151 

supposed io be the writer of the book of Job - ibid* 


Fables, ancient, an enquiry into the origin of - iii. 64 
Faith, summary view of the disputes between it and mora 
lity -. - iii. 387 

defined from St. Paul - - - v. 428 

the condition of the new covenant considered - vi. 305 

St. Paul and St. James s accounts reconciled - vi. 311 
Fall, enquired into - vi. 255 
t<tUely condemned, their being assigned to purgatory ac 
counted for - ii. 130 

Fanaticism, ill effect resulting from Butler s satire against 
fanaticism - - - i. 156 

fatalists, the influence of the principles on the conduct of, 
compared with that of the Atheists - i. 2439 

Fathers, Christian, enquiry into their sentiments of the hu 
man soul - .-_-- iii. 157 
Fiction, from what motive employed by the ancient law 
givers - ----- iv. 456 

Figurative expressions, origin of - - - iv. 170. 173 
First philosophy, vccording to Lord Bolingbroke - ii. 212 
according to San.cbo Panca - - - - ii. 215 

Fleetwpod, Gen. his character - - iii. 263 

Fool, its import in the Old Testament language - v. 340 
i o ji it ures, remarks on the laws of, in cases of high 

treason ------- v - l $9 



Forgery, marks of, in ancient writings - i. 329 

opposed to forgery by the primitive apologists for Chris 

tianity - - iii. ^91 

Foster, his notions of the Jewish theocracy examined, v. 30 
Fourmont, M. his mistake of the identity of Abraham with 

Cronos corrected - - iv. 438 

Fraud, opposed to fraud by the primitive apologists - iii. 190 

and enthusiasm, the union of accounted ibr - iii. 261 
Free gift and claim of right, the difference between - vi. 269 
Freetfyirikers, proper estimation of that character - i. 142 
- their complaints of the want of liberty ill-founded, i. 144 
- their principal abuses of liberty pointed out - i. 147 

in classic times would have been styled enemies to their 

country -* * i. 359 

- their abuse of the clergy - - - i. 160 
: this abuse the evidence of a weak cause - - i. 167 
their professions and their practice compared - i. 168 

the multifarious characters they assume - ; *.- i. 172 

- both dogmatists and sceptics - . - i. 176 
Funeral rites, the great attention paid to them by the an 
cients - ii. i IQ 

of the Egyptians, described from Herodotus - iv. 113 
Future state of rewards and punishments, the doctrine of, ne 
cessary to the well-being of civil society - i. 200 220 
the importance of the doctrine of, to the well-being of 
society, believed by all the wisest part of hiaiikind, i. 297 
how taught in the mysteries - ii. 7 

the ancient legislators unanimous in the propagating the 

belief of - ii. 323 

the sages as unanimous in propagating the belief of - ibid. 
the sages as unanimous in thinking the doctrine of, ne 
cessary to the well-being of society -, - iii. i 

Lord Shaftesbury s opinion of - iii. 9 
- sentiments of theistical philosophers on - - iii. 12 

sentiments of antiquity on the use of to society - iii. 13 
Caesar s disbelief of, with Cato and Cicero s answers to 

him - - iii. 41 

of all the "ancient Greek philosophers only believed b-y 

Socrates - iii, 47 

* from what causes disbelieved by the ancient Greek phi 
losophers - iii. 125 
considered as a moral designation, as necessarily implying 
punishments as rewards *" - 11^135 
its being disbelieved by the wisest of the ancients, no dis 
credit to the Christian doctrine of - >-, - iii. 208 
* not of the number of those doctrines taught by natural 
religion " - - iii. 210 
the benefits of that doctrine to the Gen-tile world, iii. 326 
* supplied to the Jews by an ex traordinary providence - ibid. 



lutuqe state, no part of the Mosaic dispensation - v. j 58 
purposely omitted in the Mosaic dispensation - v. 161 

the want of how supplied - v. 164 

strongly inculcated by the Suevi and Arabs - v. 177 

positive declarations against the expectation of, instanced 

from the- Jewish writers - - v. 178 

~ corroborated by the New Testament writers - v. 186 
^examination of Lord Bolingbroke s notion on the omission 

of that doctrine in the Mosaic dispensation - v. 202 
< the doctrine of deducible by natural reasons - v. 225 

a review of the prejudices which have induced to the 

belief that it was taught in the Mosaic dispensation, v. 289 

that taught by natural religion to be distinguished from 

that taught by the Christian Revelation - v. 291 

r its mention by Moses and by the following writers to be 

distinguished - v, 296 

a review of those passages in scripture urged to prove that 

it was taught in the Mosaic dispensation v. 384 

a list of texts urged by the rabbins in proof of its being 

taught under the Mosaic law - v. 414 

< an examination of the arguments founded on the nth 

chapter of the Hebrews, to shew that it was taught by 

Moses v. 428 

that it was -not taught in the Mosaic law, confirmed by 

the authorities of Grotius, Eprscopius, Arnaud, and Bp. 

Bull - v. 441 

* Dr. Rutherforth s opinion, of Moses not being studious to 

conceal this doctrine, examined - v. 480 

not contained in the Mosaic dispensation - - vi. io 

this omission a proof of its divine origin - ibid. 

brought to li-ght by the Gospel alone - vi. 233 

the origin and progress of that opinion enquired 
into - - - vi. 250 

* a free gift not a claim of right ~ - - vi. 269 


Gathered to the people, that phrase explained - v. 387 

Gaul, ancient, enquiry into the deities of iv. 237 

Geometry, on the origin of - - iv. 270 

"frermany, ancient, Caesar s account of the gods of - iv. 452 

G/i/cho, account of the mysteries of - ii. 159 

God, note on the various opinions of the human nature 

of - i. 349 

examination of Lord Bolingbroke s notions of the divine 

attributes - - - - - ii. 21 1 

the disbelief of a future state of rewards and punishments 
founded by the Greek philosophers on his immuta 
bility - - - - r f r. ^ - iii. 127 



God, whether endowed with human passions- - iii. 732 
the distinction made hy philosophers between the good 
and thcjust - iii. 133 

- a censure of those who estimate his decrees by the stand 
ard of their own ideas - - iii. 329 
- the only means of preserving the doctrine of his unity, v. 3 
God of Israel, why he gave himself a name to the 
Jews - - - iv. 28 ^ 

the relation in which he stood to the Jewish people, v. 25 

why represented with human affections - v. 20 
not less benign to man under the Law, than under tho 

Gospel - - - - ibid. 

- how considered by the neighbouring nations - v. 3.6 

his character as the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of 

Jacob, explained, and the mistakes concerning this text 
pointed out - - - - - -v. 416 

Gods of the Pagans, bad consequences of the vicious exam 
ples of- - ji. 21 
who they were, explained ii. 23 
three systems concerning - ii. 25 

the fear of amongst the Romans - - iii. 3 
the necessity of a fear of to society - - iii. 10 
how so many immoralities came to be recorded of 

them ------ ^ ( ~ jv, 2o5 

account of the origin of local tutelary ones in Greece, 

from Plato - - iv. 235 

Golden /I S3 of Apuleim, the moral of - .- - -^ ii. 108 

the foundation of that allegory - .,-. ii. 281 

story^of - - " - , :. ,/.. - ii. 282 
Golden Bough, in the Mnels, meaning of - i?. 106 
Golden Calf, account of it omitted b} Josephus - v. 250 
Good, natural, requires human industry to prep-are and ap 
ply it - - - ii. 266 

Gospel, the moral precepts of, the same with those of natural 
religion - . -< ,-/. - -, i. 286 

no justification by works under -.- - ( - + v. 436 

its nature and genius considered . ; * i* - vi. 234 
Grace, enquiry into the system of - V; . - vi. 221 
Greece, when dead men first, began to be deified there, i. 308 
the learning of, derived from Egypt .-.!- iii. 32 

much given to speculative legislation -.r - iii, QA 

J& * O " 

remarks on the species of philosophy cultivated 

tnere . . ~ " - iii- 35 

the religion of traced down to its original - ;. iv. 233 

what it borrowed from Egypt - iv, 236 

the three distinguished periods in the religion of - iv. 248 

.charged by the Egyptians with stealing their gods, iv. 250 

ignorant of the use of cavalry at the time of the Trojan 

war - - - . iv. 250 

VOL. VI, E & Grecian, 


Grecian fiislory, their accounts no otherwise to be credited 
than as corroborated by scripture - - iv. 85 

an enquiry into the validity of their testimony concerning 

the antiquity of the Egyptian monarchy ibid. 

the confused chronology of the early part of, re 

marked - - iv. 2iQ 

Gveek-philotopky, a twofold doctrine taught in, external and 

internal - - hi. 20 

account of from Macrobius - iii. 23 

progress of - iii. 32 
Green-land women, their language a refinement an that of the 

men - - iv. 408 

Grey, Dr. his notions concerning the book of Job contro 
verted - v. 321 

examination of his objections to the author of the D. L. 

account of the book of Job - v. 457 

Grotius, his fatal misinterpretations of the Jewish prophecies 

shewn - vi. 92 


Hades, its different senses in the Old and New Testaments 
pointed out ... v . 280 

JIagar, why she named the angel who appeared to her 
Elroi - - iv. 285 

Ilalde da, his remarks on the style of the Chinese lan 
guage - iv. 174 

Happiness, the pursuit of, not the obligation to morality, i. 2407 

Hare, Bp. his tract on the Difficulties and Discouragements 
which attend the Study of the Scriptures misunder 
stood - i. 144 

character of him - iv. 33 
his censure ofjosephus - - v. 129 
Hebrew, the uncertainty of that language - - vi. 153 
Hebrew Alphabet, whence derived - iv. 163 

when the points were added to it - iv. 164 
Hebrews, the argument of St. Paul s Epistle to, stated, v. 428 
Hecate of the Greeks, account of - ii. 118 
Heliopolis, the most famous college of the ancient Egyptian 

priests - - iv. 91 

- the worship established there - - iv. 93 

Hell, its different meanings in the Old and in the New Tes 
taments. - - - v. 405 
Hercules, story of his interview with Jupiter - - iv, 19* 
the ancient Egyptian, account why there were so many of 
.that name - - iv, 224 
Heresies, TermlHatis account of the origin of - iii. 199 
Hermes Trismegistus, history of the books forged in the 
of * - iii. i8S 



Hero-worship , the origin of traced * - iii. 277 

complicated in its rites ----- iii. 278 
- source of the low elate of - - - iv. 248 

Herod, the cause of his supposing Jesus to be John the 

Baptist risen from the dead, explained - - vi. 308 
Herodotus, his opinion of the origin of geometry, iv. 276 
Heroes, lives of, compared - - iv. 221 

Heroes of antiquity, their characters compounded of enthusiasm 

and craft - - iii. 259 

Hetaritf, (assemblies of the primitive Christians), the nature 

of, explained ; when and by whom suppressed, iv. 65 
Ilezekiah, the name he gave to the brazen serpent accounted 

for - iv. 437 

detail of God s dealing with him - - v. 315 
Hieroglyphics^ the first essay towards the art of writing, iv. 116 

found in use amongst the Mexicans by the Spa 

niards - <,,--- iv. 117 

found in Siberia - - iv. 119 

this picturesque method cf expression abridged by the 

Egyptians - - " - - iv. 1 20 

brief view of their types and allusions ibid. 

mythologic account of the origin of - __- > - iv. 122 

improved in the Chinese language - - iv. 123 

source of the different genius of, from the Chinese cha 

racters - iv. 127 

stood for things, and not for sounds - - iv. 130. 186* 
- used by all nations - - , r *, iv. 131 

how they caine to be applied by the Egyptians to conceal 

their learning - . iv. 140 

their Influence on language - - iv. 174 

the origin of brute-worship - ? ^< iv. 183. 186 

on the origin and progress of - - vi. 170 
Hierophant, of the mysteries, his office - :- iv. 1Q2 
Hippocrates, his opinion of the Cnidian sentences - iv. 107 

deductions from, as to the ancient practice of phy 

sic - iv. 108 

author of the diaetetic part of medicine - /- iv. in 
Holy Spirit, enquiry into the nature, office, and operations 

of _" vi. 3^7 

Homer, excelled by Virgil in the description of Ely 
sium - - - - ii. 146 

his representations of the ancient Greek physicians ascer 

tained and accounted for - - iv. 10^ 

whence he collected his materials - - iv. 434 
Hooker, h s sentiments of the practical use of religion iii. 31 1 

; his censure of those who estimate the dispensations of 

Providence by the test of their own conceptions, iii. 329 

Horace, the double sense in his famous ode, fe O navis referent? 

&c. pointed out - * - - vi. 71 

E E 2 Horeb f 


Iloreb, consequences of the contract therebetween God and 

the Jewish peopie * - - - - - v. 2(5 

Horses, not in use at the Trojan war - iv. 2^q 

Egypt abounded with, before the conquest of Libya, iv. 260 

Israelites forbid to fetch horses from Egypt - iv. 261 

motives for the prohibition - ibid, 
* Solomon s violation of the law punished - - iv. 262 
- Judea not a proper country for the use or breeding 

of - iv. 263 

Hosea, his representation of the Jewish idolatry - v. 50 
If act, his conjectures of the corruption of sacred history into 
Pagan fables - iii. 65 

Human sacrifices, the origin of, enquired into - - vi. 285 
- Bryant s opinion of the origin of, exploded - vi. 352 

Voltaire s opinion confuted - - vi. 350 
: the command that " none devoted sJiaH be redeemed" 

examined - - vi. 362 

Hyde, Lord Chancellor, how brought into disgrace, i. 157 
Hym?i, that sung by the Hie roph ants at the celebration of the 

Eleusiniao mysteries, pointed out - - ii. 45 


Jallonski, notes on a passage in, contending that the Egyp 
tian gods were not dead men deified - ii. 335 
Jacob, his expressions to Pharaoh, Gen. xlvii. ver. 9, ex 
plained - - v. 397 

bis ejaculation to his sons, Gen. xlix. 18, explained, v. 398 

bis wrestling with an angel, what intended by - vi. 26 

shewn to be of a tolerating disposition - - vi. 148 
Jamb fichus, note on a passage of - - - - i. 351 

his opinion of the ancient mysteries - ii. 208 
his account of the origin of brute-worship contro 
verted - - iv. 197 

James, his and St. Paul s account of justification on faith 
reconciled - - - vi. 311 

lapis, his character in Virgil not designed for Antonius 
Musa - - - - ii. 167 

Idolaters, the first intolerants - vi. 149 

Idolatry, account of the rise of the three species of, from 
Sanchoniatho - ii. 37 

the progress of traced ----- iii. 270 
enquiry where idolatry was punished, except under the 

Jewish economy * - vi. 145 

Idolatry of the Assyrians, transplanted into the Holy Land in 

the room of the captive Jews, how punished - v. 51 

view of the early spread of, by Calmet - v. 246 
Idolatry Jewish, under what figures represented in the pro 
phecies - - iv. 439 



Idolatry Jewish, the extent of that crime, and how legally 

punishable under the Jewish theocracy - v. 27 

never proceeding from matters of conscience - v. 28 

the sources of pointed out - v. 48 

in what it consisted - - v. 52. 61 
Jehovah, explanation of that name - - iv. 286 
Jephthah, the story of his vmv considered - - vi. 365 
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, the signs added by them to illustrate 

their prophecies, accounted for - - iv. 133 

his representation of the Jewish idolatry - - v. 55 

a passage in, predictive of the new dispensation - v. 165 
passages quoted froiD, predictive of the new dispensa 
tion - - vi. 88 

Jerusalem, the destruction of, as prophesied by Christ figu 
ratively,, in a literal sense importing the destruction of 
the world - - vi. 60 

Jeics, how differently represented by Freethinkers - i. 177 
- their religion, dogmatic theology - - ii. 30(3 

why they became hated by their neighbours >, ii. 311 
character of, by Tacitus - .- 11.315 

how long they continued ignorant of a future slate, iii. 329 
their religion syllogistically proved to be supported by an 

extraordinary providence - - ..- jii. 332 

a summary view of their religious history - <- iii. 342 
- observations on their ritual or ceremonial law iii. 344 

on the change of dispensation, prophesied by Jeremiah and. 

other prophets - , -. ,. - ibid. 

dedication of Books IV. V. VI. to them - - iv. 13 

an examination into the motives which withhold them 

from receiving Christianity - - - .,* iv, 16 

arguments adapted to invalidate them ibid. 

the subject of their naturalization argued - -. iv. 23 
the repeal of the Naturalization Bill justified - iv. 25 
~ the folly of deriving all arts, laws, and religion from them, 

or denying them the production of any - - iv. 82 

fond of Egyptian manners and superstitions - iv. 283 

their obstinate attachment to the Egyptian customs and 

superstitions historically traced - - - iv. 288 
their expulsion from Egypt by Pharaoh denied - iv. 2qi 
* - reproached in a signal manner for their ^erverseness and 

disobedience, Ezekiel chap. xx. - - iv. 331 

explanation of this celebrated chapter ~ - iv. 334 

their propensity to idolatry accounted for - ~ iv. 354 

under what figures their idolatry was represented, iv. 439 

why their policy was seldom understood - - v. i 
~ in what light their separation from the rest of mankind, 

to be" considered - * v, 3 

summary view of deliverance from Egypt in order to be 

separated - ~ - " - v> 19 

E E 3 


Jews, their theocracy established - v. 21 

thc ir idolatry, not a rejection of the God of I rael, v. 53 

how iong their theocratic form of government sub- 

Sisted - v. 83 

. their iirst kings the viceroys of God - ibid. 

when their theocratic government was abolished - v. q6 

^ at the coining of the Messiah - - v. 97 

their ignorance of a future state under the Mosaic dispen- 

: sation illustrated by the New Testament writers, v 186 

whether subject to punishment in a future state under 

the Mosaic dispensation - - v. 226 

how long they continued ignorant of a future state, v. 281 

whence their obstinate adherence to their abolished rites 

proceeds - - v. 203 

: their history supposed to be contained in the history of 

Job - - v. 322 

a surnmn.ry viesv of their history - v. 325 
the bad consequence of their propensity toward marrying 

idolatrous women - v. 341 

reflections on the moral dispensations of God toward 

them >r - v. 357 

totally ignorant of a future state under the Mosaic dis- 

pensation - - vi. 120. 132 

Ignatius Loiofa, remarks on his character - - iii. 264. 
Increase and multiply, that command considered - vi. 239 
Infanticide, remarks on the custom of, among the an 
cients, &c. - - ii. 128 

on the practice of - -- - ii. 366 

the origin and practice of, examined - vi. 285 
the origin and progress of, considered - vi. 358 
Infants, and men false h/ condemned, why consigned by Virgil 

to purgatory - ii. 127 

Infernal regions, a comment of Virgil s topography of, ii. 125 
Injidelitiff propensity of the present age to - i. 142 

an indiscriminate aversion to all the principles advanced 

by - iv. 80 

prejudicial to the defence of true religion ibid. 
the proper method of disputing with - - ibid. 
Instinct in mankind, how different from that quality in 

brutes - i. 256 

Invocation of the dead, enquiry concerning - - v. 482 
Job, Book of, a critical enquiry into - v. 298 

a dramatic composition - - v. 290 

when written v. 306. 322. 324 

observations on the imagery of - v. 311 

a continual allusion to the Mosaic law throughout, v. 319 
supposed to contain the history of the Jews - v. 322 

the language of, compared to that of the American 

Indians - ibid. 


Job, Book of f the purpose of its composition pointed 
out - - " v. 328 

examination of the characters in the piece, v. 330. 346. 362 

allegory of the story explained - v\ 330 

reflection* on the character of Satan - v. 353 
- enquiry concerning the author v. .^70 

supposed to have been written by Ezra - - ibid. 

enquiry whether " I know thai: my Redeemer liveth" Sec. 

refers to a resurrection, or temporal deliverance only, v. 371 

examination of Grey s objections to the author of the 

I). L. account of the - - v. 457 

enquiry into the antiquity of - >- v. 476 

appendix concerning the - - vi. ^45 
Job, bis real existence asserted - v. 305 

his exemplary patience not founded on his written 
story - v. 330 

reflections on the character of his wife - > v. 339 

reflections on the character of his friends - v. 346. 362 
his persecution renewed by modern critics - v. 445 
enquiry whether he put away his wife - -- v. 475 

his opinion of Providence enquired into - - v. 477 
Joel, the double senses in his prophecy pointed out, vi. 56. 61 
John the Baptist, his mission and character explained, vi. 307 
Joseph, prime minister of Egypt, married to ai daughter of 

the priest of On - - - iv, 02 

vindicated from the charge of rendering the government 

of Egypt despotic - iv. 115 

> inference drawn from his entertainment of his brethren, 

concerning the use of animal food in Egypt - iv. 268 

procures the property of all the land for Pharaoh, iv. 269 

did not make the government of Egypt despotic, iv. 373 

an eminent instance of the strength of natural affec 

tion - - v. 302 

Josephus, his character of the Jewish religion, with a refe 
rence to the Pagan mysteries ii. 34 

defended from the charge of disbelieving the miracles he 

o o 

relates - - - - - - -v. 124 

the circumstances under which he wrote his history, v. 125 

his deviations from scripture accounted for - v. 127 
Joshua, clear state of the debate between him and the Jewish 

people on the article of worship -r v. 54 

Jothams parables, an instance of instruction by apologue 

or fable - - iv. 137 

observations on the story of - iv. 39(3 
Xrony, ill consequences of the indiscriminate use of it, i. 169 
Isaiah, his denunciations against the Israelites for bringing 

horses from Egypt in violation of the Mosaic prohibi 
tion - - iv. 263 

his representation of the Jewish idolatry - v. 55. 58 



Isaiah, double senses, in his prophecies, explained - vi. 79 
- his figurative prediction of the gospel dispensation, vi. 87 
Isiac Table. See Bembine Table. 
Isis, who - - ii. 180 

and Osiris, under what similitudes worshipped - iv. 0,6 

why adopted by the Athenians as the patroness of their 

mysteries - iv. 243 

the several attributes and characters ascribed to her, iv. 244 

and Osiris, the patrons of the primitive arts - iv. 257 

and Osiris, their mysteries described in Ezekiel s vi 

sions - - iv. 295 

the cause of her bei ng worshipped under the figure of a 

galley - - iv. 375 

Israelites, why subject to few natural diseases - iv. 100 

forbid by their la\v to fetch horses from Egypt - iv. 26.1 
this law violated by Solomon, and punished - iv. 262 

treated by God as moral agents - iv. 318 

Henry s account of the stale of the arts among, in the 

time of Moses - - -? iv. 413 

Judaism, its characteristic distinction from all other reli 
gions - iv. 74 
Judea t not a proper country for the use of cavalry in, iv. 263 
Voltaire s account of, examined v. 13 
Judgment, Christ s account of it examined - ~ vi. 313 
Judgment of Hercules, an allegoric piece to excite the youth 
of Greece to virtue - - v. 471 
\ Julian, JLmperor, his observations on the double doctrines 
of the Greek philosophers - - in. 98 

the miracle of his being defeated in his attempt to re 

build the Temple considered - * vi. 335 

Jupiter, only one deity though known by many local tutelar 

appellations - ? - - - ii. 369 

a local deity - - iv. 76 

the stories of his adulteries founded in truth - iv. 206 
Jupiter Amman , moral of the Egyptian fable concerning, ii.3 
Justice, the pure stream of in England - - iv. 10 by faith, explained - ^ vi. 305 
St. Paul s arid St. James s accounts reconciled r vi. 311 


Kings of the Jexs, the viceroys of God r - v. 83 

Klrcher, characterised as a writer - - - iv. 211 

- his opinion concerning the Egyptian characters, 

iv. 147. 386. 416 


JLactantitts, an examination of the argument of his treatise 

De La Dei ? ? ? - * r iii. 131 


Lamb, Paschal, a type of the future sacrifice of Christ, vi./J5-4S 
Lambert, his character - - iii. 263 

Language, a deduction of the origin of iv. 133 

upheld at first by a mixture of words and signs - ibid. 

its improvement by apologue or fable - - iv. 137 
- its advance to elegance by the metaphor - - iv. 339 

the revolutions of traced - iv. 166 
Diodorus Siculus s account of the origin of - iv. 390 
first taught by God - - iv. 391 
Law, the two great sanctions of - - i. 210 
Lawgiver, heroic, displayed in the character of /Eneas, ii. 85 
- from what motive induced to have recourse to fiction, iv.456 
Lawgivers, summary view of their conduct in the propa 
gation of religion - - - - - - vi. 112 

Law, Mosaic, the objections brought against the sufficiency 
of it, in obtaining its end, equally valid against the law 
of nature _"- v. 65 

its provision against idolatry - * v. 70 
. ause of its inefficacy - v. 71 
its divine institution manifest in the dispensations of Pro 
vidence toward the Jewish people - v. 78 

- the primary intention of - v. 79 

the temporal sanctions of not transferred into the Gos 

pel - . v. 148 

illustrations from the prophets of the temporal nature of 

its sanctions - - v. 158 

the Christian doctrine shadowed under the rites of, v. 295 
* in what sense typical or spiritual - v. 388 

not supposed by St. Paul to offer a future state to its 

followers - v. 437 

Lazes penal, to enforce opinions only equitable under a 

theocracy - - - - v. 23 

Lazarus, passages in the parable of explained, with reference 

to arguments founded on them of a future state being 

taught by Moses - v. 420 

Legislation ancient, a divine interposition the very spirit 

of - ii. 81 

Legislators, and their pretended missions, an enumeration 

of - 1.314 

an enquiry into their motives - i-3 1 / 

placed by Virgil in Elysium - ii 147 
-~ however different from each other in other points, unani 
mous in propagating the belief of a future state of re 
wards and punishments - * - ii. 328 

-!- compared with modern missionaries - ii. 333 

always enthusiasts - * iii. 258 

". never found a people without religion - - -iii. 309 
Letters, whether entitled to patronage of the great - i. 191 
* the history of * * - * iv. 116 


I N D E X T O 

Letters, the antiquity of among the Egyptians, inferred from 
their mythoJogic derivation of them - - iv. 162 
> the invention of, by Atossa, fabulous - - iv. 410 
Lex Sacra, what ii. 360 

Liberty, civil., too great an attention to the security of, sub 
versive of religion iv. 2 
Life, the promises of, under the Mosaic law, how to be un 
derstood - v. 400. 408 
XiV//, his character of Seipio Africanus - - iii. 397 
Locke, Mr. his memory injured by his friend Collins - i. 162 

his last word to Collins - - - i. 163 
his observations on the Jewish theocracy - v. 25 
JLorcTs Supper, the anti-type of the paschal lamb - ri. 292 
the institution of, examined from St. Paul s sense of it, vi.2QO* 
- Bossuet s objections to the p rote Hants opinion of the 

figure of This is my body, by those of / am the vine, I am 
the door, examined - vi. 385 

Lot, his story supposed to be allegorised by Ovid in Baucis 
and Philemon - - iii. 66 

Love, Plato s account of the origin of - - vi. 237 

Litcian, his opinion of death - iii. 105 

- his account of the origin of brute-worship contro 
verted - - - iv. 195 
Lucius, story of his transformation, from the Golden Ass 
of Apuleius T- ii. 182 
Jjttxury, observations on the vague meaning of that word, i. 284 

true definition of - - - - i. 287 
Lycanthropy, a Grecian disorder, account of - - iii. 69 
Lycurgus, his chief aim in the laws of Sparta - iv. 358- 
Lyte, "anecdote relating to his conjectural notes touching the 

origin of the University of Oxon, &c. - - iii. 386 


Macrobius, his account of the doctrines of Greek philoso 
phers - - - * iii. 23 

Magistrates, civil) their inducement to an alliance with the 
Church t - ii. 272 

; two conclusions drawn by believers and unbelievers, from 
his large share in the establishment of ancient national 
religions - iii, 221 

Mahomet, the absurdity of his imitating Moses in the dis^ 
ti notion of meats, pointed out - iv. 321 

h:j imitation of Moses in the union of civil and religious 

policy - -s v. 26 

the plan en which his religion was framed - v. 46. 81 

to what his successes were chiefly pwing - ? v. 157 
Mahometan writers, a character of v. 4* 

how determined to actiou - i- 268 



Man, in society described - - i. 277 

an enquiry into the moral constitution of, as an individual, 

and in society - - ii. 222 

Man a tid woman, examination of the Mosaic account of, vi. 236 

examination of the Command to increase and mul 

tiply - - vi. 239 

Mosaic account of their specific nature examined, vi. 241 
their admission into Paradise - - vi. 243 

thejr first religion acquired naturally - - vi. 244 

their early acquisition of speech - - ihid. 
- religion revealed to them in Paradise * - vi. 246 

their condition under natural religion enquired into, vi. 248 

their condition under reveaied religion enquired into, vi. 254 
Matiaswh, detail of God s dealings with him - - v. 317 
Mandeville, examination of his principle of private /ices 

being public benefits - i. 281 

his argument reduced to an absurdity - i. 287 
Manicheans, Art. VII. of the Church of England directed 

against them - vi. 3 

Mansfield, Lord, Dedication of Books IV. V. VT, to him, iv. i 
Mead, Dr. his opinion of Demoniacs examined - vi. 392 
Medicine, the pans of, and when each obtained in use, iv. no 
^ indication of the great antiquity of - - ibid. 

Melk hizedec, observations on the story of - vi. 149 

Metempsychosis, why taught in the mysteries - - ii. 151 
the doctrine of, how employed by the ancients, iii. 67 

and metamorphosis, difference between - - iii. 68 

Pythagorean notion of - - - - - iii. 78 

came originally from Egypt, and believed by all man 

kind - - iii. 80 

Plato s notion of ------ iii. 92 

the dor-trine of, not the origin of brute-worship, iv. 194 
Mexicans, remarks on the religion of i. 304 

. their use of hieroglyphic writing illustrated by their man 
ner of painting their prayers - - iv. 117 

account of a Mexican history in the hieroglyphic 
style - - - iv. 118 

Mhhokek, the proper signification of that word pointed 
out - -. v. 98 

Middleton,, remarks on his Life of Cicero - - iii. 376 

: his arguments of the derivation of Popish from Pagan 
rites examined - - - - - iv. 46*0 

his opinion of the gift of tongues exposed - - vi. 389 
Milesian J ables, what - - - - ii. 181 
Milton, remarks on the species of poetry in his Paradise 

Lost - - ii. 95 

Mind and intellect, the Aristotelian distinction - 111.163 
Minerva, exposition of a famous hieroglyphical inscription 

on her temple at Sa is - - iv. 147 


4$ I N D E X T O 

Miracles, evidences of an extraordinary providence over the 
Jewish nation v. 123. 134 

a necessary confirmation of the secondary senses of the 

Jewish prophecies - - - - vi. 76 

the DSC to be made of them in disputes - - vi. 20* 
the testimony required for the belief of, vi. 320. 338 

.what to be accounted miracles - - vi. 321 

the only proof of a doctrine proceeding from God, vi. 323 

of the resurrection of Christ t con?idered - - vi. 326 
of casting out devils or evil spirits, considered - vi. 329 

of healing natural diseases, considered - - vi. 331 
< designed to defeat the designs of impious men, consi 
dered - - vi. 335 

M rlh, an enemy to chastity - ii. 185 

JtftSJttjjwrn es, Catholic and Protestant, reasons of the ill success 

of their missions ii. 328 

compared with ancient lawgivers - ii. 333 
Missions, pretended by ancient legislators, list of - i. 314 
Molech, the meaning of giving seed to him - - v. 404 
$I&nte$quieu, extract of a letter from, to the author, iii. 355 
Moen, ils various symbols and attributes as represented in 

the Pagan mythology, from the Golden Ass of Apu- 

leius - - ii. 188 

Moral sense, the foundation of - i. 233 

Plato the patron of - - - - i. 240 
Morality and faith, summary view of the disputes concern 
ing - - - iii. 387 

Moses, a list of Pagan gods and heroes supposed by Huet to 
have arisen from the corruption of h ; s history, iii. 65 

his account of the Egyptian priesthood, a confirmation of 
those of the ancient Greek historians - - iv. 91 

corroborates their account of the religious rites of 

Egypt iv. 94 

-of the funeral rites of Egypt - - iv. 114 

of the division of the lands of Egypt - iv. 115 

the former of the Hebrew alphabet, by an improvement of 

the Egyptian characters - - iv. 163 

the difference between contradicting the astronomy and 

the history wrote by him - iv. 215 

characters in the Pagan mythology supposed by some to 
be intended for him - - - iv. 225 

-one intention of his law, to prohibit all intercourse be 
tween the Hebrews and the Egyptians - - iv. 261 
r- his motives explained - - ibid. 

the reason oi his unwillingness tp undertake his mis~ 

sion - -. - iv. 287 

his laws accommodated to the prejudices of the Jews, in 

favour of the Egyptian customs - r iv. 299 

this no objection to the divinity of his mission - iv. 306 


Moses, his knowledge in the Egyptian learning, and the laws 
by him instituted, a confirmation of the divinity of his 
mission - - 7 iv. 354 

- answers to deistical objections against the divinity of his 
mission - - - - iv. 356 

vindicated from the supposition of having had recourse to 

fiction in certain cases - - - iv. 456 

his injunctions to the Jews against the local idolatry of the 

Cutheans - v. 50 

his injunctions to the Jews against the local idolatry of 

Canaan - - v. 58 

the omission of a fulure state in his law, intended, v. 161 

two periods observable in his history - ibid. 

the sense of his expressions relating the creation of man 

ascertained - - v. 384 

the veil over his face explained - - vi. 25 
Mosaic Dispensation, not a complete religion - iii. 327 

logically proved to be supported by an extraordinary pro 

vidence ... - . iii. 332 

on what principles the proof of it conducted - iii. 334 

its limitation to a particular people no impeachment of the 

impartiality of God towards mankind in general, iii. 340 

summary estimate of - iii. 342 

its divinity logically proved - vi. 107. 127 
Mosaic ritual, the cause of the admission of sacrifices into it 

considered - - vi. 285 

Mosaic sacnfices, had types and also a moral import, vi. 283 
Moses, Divine Legation of Demonstrated, the medium em 
ployed to establish his Divine* Legation - i. IQJ 

propositions on which this demonstration depends, i. 200 
- summary view of the opposition* this performance met 

with - - iv. 28 

recapitulation of the argument proving his Divine Le 

gation - - vi. 103 

the length of it accounted for - - vi. 109 

argument designed for the subject of Books VII. VIII. IX. 

of the Divine Legation - - vi. 142. 233 
Musa Antonius, not depicted by Virgil under the character 
of lapis - ii. 167 
Muskets, humorous story of a parcel of, with a logical 
inference - - vi. 141 
Mysteries, of the Pagan religion, for what purpose insti 
tuted - - ii. i 

what the original ones ii. 3 

the Eleusinian - ii. 5 

arguments in favour of - - * - - ii. 14 
- who the first institurors of - ii. 72 

the abuse of them in the Christian religion - ii. 352 
- explanation of that term * - - - ii. 355 


430 I N D E X T O 

Mysteries, Pagan, marks of their Egyptian original - iv. 93 
. gummary view of * - - vi. 112 

Mythology, ancient, ex plan at ion of - . - - iii. 272 
the testimony not to be trusted, in ascertaining times and 
facts - - - iv. 246 

sources of the confusion in - iv. 247 
MythraSy priests of, explanation of their names - ii. 26, 27 

probationary trials previous to initiation into the mys 

teries of - ii. 114 


"Nature, state of, and civil society, difference between, i. 209 

enquiry into the systems of * vi. 227 
Nebuchadnezzar, enquiry into his disorder - - iii. 69 
Nero, Emperor, how deterred from attempting to intrude 

upon the Eleusinian mysteries - ii. 9 

Newton, Sir Isaac, his account of the origin of idolatry, i. 308 

his system of idolatry controverted - iii. 270 
his character as a natural philosopher - iv. 215 

misled by Greek mythologists - ibid. 

the argument of his Egyptian chronology - iv. 216 

his reasons for the identity of Osiris and Sesostris, iv. 217 

his mistake in this illustrated by a case stated in similar 

terms - - ---iv. 221 

the source of his mistake - - - - iv. 227 

his hypothesis supported principally by two mythologic 

fables - - * - iv. 249 

mistakes the times -of the Pagan deities, compared with 

the asra of the Trojan war - - iv. 251 

his system of chronology contradictory to scripture, iv.256 

his chronology refuted by deduction ibid. 

his account of Vulcan, compared with thatof Homer,iv.259 
his assertion of the conquest of Libya furnishing Egypt 

with horses, invalidated - - iv. 259 

his opinion of the time when the Egyptians introduced 

animal food, refuted - - iv. 267 

his period of the division of the lands of Egypt, dis 
proved - - iv. 268 

his account of the first introduction of letters into Egypt, 

rejected - - - - - - - iv. 270 

his observations relating to the populousness of Egypt, 

examined - - - - - iv. 271 

makes Sesostris to be Hercules - iv. 273 

quotes j^Esculapius as the first who huilt with square 

stones - - iv. 274 

summary view of the dispute concerning the identity of 

Osiris with Sesostris - iv. 275 

Nile, the happy effects of its annual overflowings - iv. 87 

4 Nisus, 


Nisus, and Euryalus, remarks on the episode of, in the 
/Eneis - ii. 9! 

Noah, his character found to answer that of the Indian 
Bacchus - iv. 433, 

Nocturnal assemblies, of the primitive Christians, first oc 
casion of - iv. 40 

their antiquity among Pagans - - * - iv. 6 j 
Nordeu, Capt. his mistaken conclusion, from a view of the 

Pyramids, concerning the antiquity of the Egyptian 
hieroglyphics, corrected ... iv. 404 


Oaths, of the citizens of Athens - ii, 292 

of the priestesses of Bacchus - - ^ -* ii. 293 
solemnly regarded by the Romans *< - - iii. 4 
Cicero s opinion of the obligation to fulfil, under the 

belief of the immutability of the deity - - iii. 128 

Obelisks, of the aacient Egyptians, the public records of the 
times - - iv. 145 

Obligation, duties of perfect and imperfect, how distin 
guished - . i. 208 

Ombites and Tentyrites, occasion of the intolerant proceed 
ings of - ii. 306 

Omens, their admission into ancient history, accounted 
for - - i. 312 

two kinds of - , - ii. 82 
On, some account of the priests of iv. 93 
Ofiirocritic art, explained - - iv. i$o 

whence the art of deciphering borrowed - - iv. 183 
Oracles, the original motive, of consulting them - iv. 237 
Origea and Celsus, comparative characters of - ii. 4 

his account of the stoical renovation - - iii. 105 

his misunderstandings of the promises of the Jewish law 

pointed out - - v. 478 

Osiris aad Sesostris, their identity controverted against Sir 

Isaac Newton - - - iv. 218 

who - - iv. 226 

and Sesostris distinguished - - iv, 225. 230 

account of, and his cortege, from JDiodorus Siculus, iv. 227 

his symbols - - - iv. 233 
proof of his antiquity equal to Moses - - ibid. 

his superior antiquity to Sesostris ascertained - ibid. 
- his various characters at different places, as expressed in 

an epigram of Ausonius - iv. 244, 245 

represented in the Golden Calf of the Egyptians, iv. 290 
Orpheus, said to have been struck dead by lightning - ii. 66 

where placed in Elysium by Virgil - ii. 147 
Ovid, remarks on his Metamorphosis * ? - - iii. 61 

Ovid s 


Ovid s Metamorphosis, a popular history of Providence, iii. 71 

key to his poem - - iii. 75 
-r Metamorphosis founded on the Metempsychosis, iii. 77 

his account of Typhon s war with the gods - iv. iqo 
Oxyrynchit and Cynopolita?, Plutarch s account of the re 

ligious contest between * ii. 307 

Paganism, chiefly founded in the deification of dead men, i. 306 

ancient, the religion of the civil magistrate - i. 309 
favourer of mysteries - - ii. 77 

the genius of, considered as opposed to the true reli 

gion - * - ii. 302 

intercommunity of worship general in * ii. 303 
Pan, how painted by the Egyptians - iv. 191 
Pantomime, historical anecdote of the great expression of 

one - - vi. 35 

story of a famous one at Rome - vi. 169 
Parable, the origin and nature of - - iv. 167 
Parmenides, the philosopher, his public and private doc 

trines - - iii. 21 

Passover, Jewish, its typical meaning pointed out - vi. 55 
Patriarchs, Jewish, shewn to be no punishers for opi 

nions - - vi. 148 

Patriots, where placed in Elysium by Virgil - - ii. 148 
Paul, St. why brought before the court of Areopagus at 

Athens * - ii. 319 

why supposed not to be brought before that court ui a 

criminal view - ii. 381 

the sense of his words in Heb. xi.6, ascertained, iii. 322 

for what purpose called to the Apostieship - iv. 316 

citations from, in proof that the doctrine of a future state 

was not known under the Mosaic dispensation, v. 186 

that its sanctions were all temporal - v. 193 

his sentiments of persecution before and after con 

version - - - - v. 249 

his definition of faith - v. 429 

a seeming contradiction in, between Acts xiii. 32, and 

lleb. xi. 39, reconciled - v. 433 

an important passage in his Epistle to the Romans, 

chap. viii. ver. 3, 4, expounded - v. 436 

his account of the institution of the Lord s Supper, 

examined - - vi. 296 

his account of justification by faith reconciled to that of 

James - vi. 311 

Pelasgians, account of their adoption of the names of the 

Egyptian gods, and application of them to their own 

deities, from Herodotus - iv. 238 



Pelasgians, communicate the names of the Egyptian gods to 

the Greeks - - iv. 240 

Perfection, the doctrine of, enquiry concerning it - vi. 310 

Peripatetics, their notions of Providence - hi. 140 

Peripatetics and Old Academy, their conformity - iii. 367 

Persecution, for religiuus opinions, the true origin of, 

traced - iv. 35. vi. 149 

enquiry into the nativity of - iv. 51 

frequently an engine of state - - - iv. 56 
discountenanced by the Gospel dispensation - v. 249 
Persians, why they had no statues of their gods - i. 308 

their superstition described in Ezekiel s visions - iv. 298 
Peruvians, remarks on the religion of i. 304 
Peter, his vision of the clean and unclean beasts ex 
plained > iv. 320 

his double sense, pointed out - . - vi. 70 
Pharmacy, general division of ,.-. iv. ill 
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the scripture account of - iv. 87 

promotes Joseph - iv. 92 

an illustration of the onirocriiic art, drawn from Joseph s 

interpretation of his two dreams ;-/ - iv. 183 

his chariots and cavalry in the pursuit of the Israel 

ites - ,;, i -- r - iv. 260 

Phertcydes Cyrus, the first advancer of the notion of the 

TO EV - - - - iii. 179 

Pheniciau superstition, described in EzekicFs visions, iv. 297 
Philosophy, the study of, not ihe only business for which man 

is sent into the world - - ii. 333 

Philosophers, Greek, legislative, always professed belief in a 

future state; mere philosophers the contrary - iii. 38 

the causes which induced them to disbelieve a future state 

of rewards and punishments - <*. iii. 125 

ibeir conceptions of the soul - ",- iii. 148 

Physic, critical enquiry into the state of, in ancient Egypt, iv. 95 
Pirithous, account of the fable of his design to steal Pro 
serpine from hell - - ii. 139 
Planet-worship, the earliest species of idolatry - . -. iii. 273 

the first religion of Greece ,,- < . iv. 234 
Plants, worshipped by the Egyptians - - iv. 184 
Plato, the proem to his laws - i. 344 

his definition of sacrilege ,- -> - i. 345 

the first of his laws - . ., i. 347 

his public writing shewn to differ from his private sen 

timents - - .; - iii. 21 

a character of his politics and philosophy * . - iii. 85 

Cicero s remarks on his Phsedo - iii. 90 
in what sense an advocate for the immortality of the 

soul - ..,- - . . - iii. Q2 

~ his sentiments concerning the soul - iii. 161 

Vot.VL FF Platonists, 

434 i N D E X T O 

Platonists, their notions of Providence - iii. 141 

Pleasure, allegorical view of the dangers attending an indul 
gence in - - ii. 183 
Pliny, the reason of his persecuting the Christians, iv. 36" 

his doubts respecting the manner of proceeding against 

Christians - - iv. 45 

the reason of his persecuting the Christians ihid. 

Plutarch, his opinion of two principles - i. 338 

his derivation of superstition - ii. 260 
- his notion of death - - iii. 121 

observations on his recital of the opinion of the philo 

sophers, concerning the soul - iii. 169- 

an examination of his comparison between superstition 

and atheism - iii. 22$ 

his famous exclamation to his countrymen - iii. 239. 
- accuses the Jews ol worshipping swine - iv. 422 
Pococke, his account of the Egyptian hieroglyphics, iv. 376* 

objections to his account - - iv. 377 
Poisons, the virtue of - - i. 187 
Policy, human, Critias of Athens, his history of - iii. 219 
Political romances, the common errors they have all fell 

into - i. 215 

Polybius, his testimony iii favour of the piety of the Ro 
mans - - iii. 3 

his opinion as to the means bv which states are brought 

to ruin iii. 5 

remarks on his character - iii. 6 

Polytheism, in what it consisted, explained - - ii. 188 
Pomponatius, some account of - i. 221 

- his opinion of a future state defended against Bayle, i. 223 
Pope Alex, his observations on Lord Bolingbroke - ii. 263 
Poppy, why the juice of used in the ceremonial of the shows 
in the Eleusinian mysteries - - ii. 124 

Porphyry and Clemens Alexandrinus, their accounts of the 
Egyptian characters and writing - - iv. 141 

-~~ his account of the origin of brute-worship, contro 
verted - iv. 197 
Posterity, why the punishments of the Mosaic law extended 
to them - - . v. 164 

the case argued - v. 167* 
Posthumius, extract from his speech on the introduction of 

foreign worship to Rome - - ii. 293 

* bis intention only to prevent the exercise of unlicensed 
religion - - ii. 322- 

Prc-existence of the soul, enquiry into the sentiments of the 
ancients concerning - - iii. 152 

Press, liberty of, the propensity of the present age to infide 
lity, not to be ascribed to - - i. 143 

the complaints of its being restricted disingenuous, i. 144 


PrideauXj his account of the deification of heroes, contro 
verted - - iv. 204 

Priests, pious and virtuous, where placed in Elysium by 
Virgil - - ii. 148 

Principles, good and evil, the belief of, how guarded against 
by the writer of the book of Job - - v. 358 

Priscilian, the first sufferer for opinion - - - iv. 55 

Prodigies, &c. their admission into ancient history accounted 
for - - i. 312 

Prophecies, scripture, defended from the insinuations of 
Dr. Middleton $M? - vi. 53 

their primary and secondary senses distinguished- vi. 78 

misunderstood by the Jews, and why so ordained - vi. 89 

the use to be made of them in disputes - vi. 203 
Prophecy, what a necessary confirmation of their reference 

to the Messiah - - vi. 77 

an evidence of a doctrine proceeding from God - vi. 340 

considerations on - ibid. 
Prophets, reason of the institution of a school for - iv. 308 
Prophets, Jercish, an enquiry into the nature of the divine 

commission to - - iii. 344 

rational account of their illustrating their prophecies by 

signs - - - iv. 133 

Propitiatory sacrifice, origin and nature of it, explained, vi. 276 
Providence, the doctrine of, the great sanction of ancient 

laws - - - - i. 323 

the spirit of legislation depends on the doctrine of a, ii. 81 
- the inequalities of, how rectified by the ancients - iii. 67 

what kind of, believed by the ancient Theistic philoso 

phers - - iii. 140 

administration of, at various times, considered - iv. 336 

extraordinary, a necessary consequence of the Jewish. 

theocracy - v. 117 

illustrated from Solomon s prayer at the dedication of 

the Temple - - v. 135 

* from Ezekiel - - - v. 137 

from Amos - - - v. 138 

evidences of its ceasing - v. 142 

~~ the ease with which the pretension to it might have 

been carried on - . ibid* 

-< the mention of the inequalities of, by the sacred writers, 

accounted for - - - - v. 145 

- remarks on the different reception of its adverse dispen 
sations, in ancient and modern times - v. 474 
~~ Job s opinion of the equality and inequality of - v. 477 

revival of an equal, to the chosen race - vi. 266 

considerations on God s using human instruments in the 

dispensations of - vi. 371 

f * a Provide nc^ 


Providence, considerations on God s using temporary plagues 
in the dispensations of - - vi. 381 

Psammitichus, his scheme to establish an intercourse between 
Egypt and the Grecian states - - iv. 161 

Psyche, the ancient story of, explained - - ii. 200 

Punishments, how applied in civil society - i. 213 

of the crimes of parents on their children, on what prin 

ciple only to be vindicated - - iv. 20 

Purgatory, remarks on Virgil s account of - ii. 125 

the inhabitants of - - ii. 126- 

Pyramids of Egypt, probable reasons why they exhibit no 

hieroglyphic inscriptions - - iv. 404 

the Egyptian architecture formed on the idea of - iv. 40^ 

not temples, but sepulchres - iv. 406 

alluded to in the book of Job - - v. 312- 
Pyrrhonians, and Academics, their principles compared, iii. 38 

their origin - iii. 51 
Pythagoras, his knowledge in physics established in late 

experience concerning earthquakes - - iii. 38. 362 

an enquiry into the principles of his philosophy - iii. 57 

his legislative fame - - - - - iii. 60 

taught several doctrines which he did not believe - iii. 78 
Pythagoreans, their notions of Providence - iii. 141 

their tenets concerning tlie human soul - iii, 161 


Quakers, their motives for rejecting the institution of bap 
tism examined into - - - v. 2oX 
Quaternion, philosophic, their opinion of the soul - iii. 159. 


Rachel, the story of her stealing her father s gods, exa 
mined - - vi. 148 
Rainbow, first creation and reason of iv. 443 
Reason, the only test of truth - - - - i. 159 

- the use of, in the discovery of truth - i. 184. vi. 22Q 

- why discredited in religious controversy - - iii. 133 
Redemption by Christ, had a retrospect from the Fall, vi. 268 

an act of grace, not of debt - - vi. 269 

the means employed in that great work enquired into, vi.27i 
Reguhis, Cicero s enquiry into his obligation to return to. 

Carthage - - - - iii. 128 

Religion, the protection of, necessary in all governments, 1.192 
. reply to Bayle s opinion, that a man devoid of religion 

may be sensible of honour - - - - i. 263 
* always the peculiar care of the magistrate - i. 300 
* the necessity of uniting it to the state - * ii. 264 



Religion, brief view of the state of, in the ancient world, 11.296 
< supposed by the Sages to be calculated only for the ser 
vice of the state - - iii. 18 
the double doctrine of the ancients considered - iii. 23 

its truth manifested by its use to society - - iii. 216 

if admitted to have" been invented by statesmen, not 

therefore false - - iii. 222 

an enquiry into the first origin of - iii. 269 

no people ever found without one - iii. 309 

Hooker s sentiments on the political use of - - iii. 311 

too great an attention to civil liberty subversive of - iv. 2 

a comparison of the many that have existed in the world, 

the clew to the true one - - iv. 73 

the absurdity of any human legislature enforcing it by 

penal laws - v. 29 

Christian and Mosaic, necessarily dependent on some 

preceding religion - v. 44 

the care of legislators in the propagation - - - vi. 115 

acquired naturally by Adam and Eve - - vi. 244 

first revealed in Paradise *.. ...> . - vi. 246 

reasonableness of a doctrine no prooj\ but a presumption 

of its divine original - - vi. 322 

miracles the only proof of a doctrine being from God, vi.323 

prophecy an additional evidence - vi. 340 
Religion established, the voice of nature - - ii. 265 

the nature of - ^ - - ii. 266 

necessary to society - - ibid. 
danger from its deviating from the truth - - ii. 274 
necessity of its alliance -with the state - ii. 275 

advantages io the magistrate from such an alliance - ibid. 

what it receives from the stale - - ii. 283 

what it communicates to the state - ii. 285 

with a test law, the universal voice of nature - ii. 292 

speech of Posthmnius on the introduction of foreign 

worship at Rome - - .,..._ jj. 203 

causes which facilitated it - - ii. 296 

good purposes of - ii. 297 

distinction between established and tolerated, according to 

Dionysius Halicarnassus - ii. 324 

advantages of establishments - iv. 7 
Religio?i Jewish, of names, an Egyptian superstition, iv. 285 

not adopted by any of the neighbouring nations, and 

why - ( - v. 62 

Religion natural, true definition of - - - - iii. 349 

the Mosaic, a rcpnblication of - - iii. "350 

teaches God to be the rewarder of them .that diligently 

seek him - vi. 250 

of what those rewards consist - - ibid. 

the distinction between natural and revealed - vi. 264 

F F 3 Religions 


Religions Pagan, not interfering with each other, v. 42 
Religion revealed, its internal and external evidence i. 193 
- the necessary qualifications for treating of them, i. 10,5 
only able to enforce the sanction of reward - i. 216 
condition of man under it, enquired into - - vi. 254 
the three systems of - vi. 265 

Religion, toleration of, motives for toleration - - ii. 299 
danger of enforcing conformity ibid. 

the sense in which it was understood by the Pagan 

world --------ii. 301 

Religious truth, enquiry into what it is - - vi. 218 

Religious war, one in ancient Egypt, and the occasion of 

it - ii. 306 

Repentance, the nature and efficacy of, considered, vi. 307 
Resurrection, allegorized by the Greek philosophers, iii. 197 
Revelation, particular objections against, answered - iii. 339 
- some one embraced by all mankind - - iv. 69 

natural inferences from this general propensity, iv. 76 
the use and necessity of it iv. 73 

Revelations Pagan, one circumstance common to all, iv. 75 

attributed by the primitive fathers to the devil - ibid. 
Reward, the Sanction of, explained - i. 210 
to be enforced only by religion - - i. 216 
Rhea, observations on the fable of - iv. 201 
Rhetoric, use of disallowed at the court of Areopagus, i. 149 
Riddles, propounded by the Hebrew Sages, as mutual trials 

of sagacity - - iv. 168 

Ridicule, the favourite figure of speech among Free 
thinkers - i. 148 
* Shaftesbury s justification of, examined 

not the test of truth - 

how far it may be safely made use of 

the defence of, by Dr. Akenside, examined 

not the test of truth 

the proper detector of error 




Rites, legal and patriarchal, not to be confounded, iv. 302 
Ritual law, of the Jews, made in reference to the Egyptian 
superstition * - * iv. 299 

this no objection to the divinity of it - - iv. 317 

characterized in Ezekiel * iv. 334 
explained * ibid, 
Romans, to what their ruin was owing * i. 288 

their law respecting tolerated religions - - ii. 321 

excellence of their constitution * iii. 3 

their fear of the gods - ibid. 

their regard for an oath - iii. 4 

their use of sacrifice at concluding treaties of peace, vi. 277 

Rome, Christian, whether its superstitions borrowed from the 

Pagan city, examined - - iv. 363 

2 Rose, 


Rose, what the emhlem of among the ancients - ii. 194 

origin of the proverb, " under the rose" - ibid. 
Runic alphabet) when and why changed for the Roman, iv. 163 
Rutherforth, Dr. his notion of the effect the withdrawing the 

sanctions of the Jewish Jaw had on the obligatory force 
of that law, examined - - y. 120 

his notions of the temporal sanctions of the Jewish law 
being continued under the Gospel, examined - v. 148 

- his notions of inerhcacy of action without speech ex 
amined ( - - vi. 167 


Sabbath, a positive institution - - iv* 303 

the Jews breach of by circumcision considered^ iv. 441 

its origin - - iv. 443 
Sacred band of Thebans, Plutarch s remarks on the death 

of r ii. 95 

Sacrifice, origin and nature, of, explained - vi. 274 

made use of by the Romans at the ratification of 

peace - - - vi. 277 

Mosaic examined - . * vi. 283 

the origin and progress of human - - ,,* vi. 285 
r of Christ -on the cross, considered - - vi. 287 

the admission of it into the Mosaic ritual considered, vi. 288 
feast upon the Sacrifice., a type of the Lord s Supper, vi. 292 
Sacrifices) human, the command to Abraham to offer up hig 

son Isaac vindicated from the objection of giving a 

divine sanction to - - vi. 30, 36 

their origin enquired into - - - vi. 285 , 
- Bryant s opinion of their origin, exploded - - vi. 352 

Voltaire s opinion confuted - V vi. 357 

the command that "none devoted shall be redeemed," exa 

mined - vi. 36*2 

Sages, ancient, unanimous in thinking the doctrine of a 

future state of rewards and punishments necessary to the 

well being of society - - iii. i 

- did not believe in a future state ~ iii. 15 

held it lawful for the public good, to say one thing 

when they thought another - iii. 16 

Sallu-st, his opinion of the divine nature - iii. 145 

Samuel, his conduct in establishing the regal form of govern 
ment in Judea - - v. 87 
Sanclwniatho, arguments proving that "this is the history nar 
rated in the Eleusinian mysteries - : ii. 44 

extract from his history - - ii. 45 
Sanhedrim, why instituted - - iv. 308 
when established - - iv. 313 

the motives of Jesus Christ s evasive reply to their inter 

rogations y;- - - - - IV. 313 

F F 4 


Satan j reflections on his character as represented by Job, v. 353 

Saul, the phrase of his being among the prophets, ex 
plained - - iv. 310 

characterized - ibid. 

Savages, American, why averse to the arts of civil so 
ciety - . ii. 331 

Scarron, his artifice in ridiculing the sentiment of Sulpi- 
cius - j. 154 

Scenical representations, in what respect without moral im 
port - vi. 34 

Scepticism, characterized - - vi. 214 

Sceptre of Judah, the common notions of that phrase, exa 
mined v. 99 

true sense of, pointed out - v. 113 
Scriptures sacred, a summary view of their contents, v. 175 

general rule for the interpretation of- v. 382 
* three points recommended to the attention of commenta 
tors - v. 413 

much abused in the search after truth - - vi. 219 
Self-love, the operation of in mankind, traced - i. 260 
Sempiternus, the true import of that word ascertained, iii. 180 
Seneca, his consolaiion against the fear of death - iii. 104 
accused by St. Austin of duplicity - - iii. 361 

Serpent, in the fall of man, the true meaning of ascer 
tained - - v. 161 

how the sentence passed on it, is to be understood, v. 386 
Serpent, crooked, in Job and Jsaiah, the meai ing of ex 
plained - v. 359 

Sesostris, account of, from Dioclorus Siculus - - iv. 89 
and Osiris, arguments against the identity of, in oppo 
sition to Sir Isaac Newton - iv. 218 

and Osiris distinguished - - iv. 226 233 
who - - iv. 226 

divides Egypt by transverse canals - - iv. 227 
- his motives for - - iv. 270 
Shaft esbury, Lord, remarks on his character i. 163 

his unfair treatment of Mr. Locke - - ibid. 
Sherlock, Bishop, his notion of the tribal sceptre of Judah, 

examined - v. 102 

Shuckford, Dr. his remarks on the ancient ritual law, exa 
mined - - iv. 335. 439 
Sibyl, how that character in the JEneis to be under 
stood - - ii. 104 
Signs, memorable instance of divine instruction communicated 
by, in the case of Abraham - - vi. 3 
Silenus, whence Ovid derived his idea of iii. 72 
Sleeping scheme, the principles of, examined - - v. 198 
Society, civil, the first invention of, and the motives to, i. 205 
no preservative against moral disorders - - i. 207 



Society) civil, unable to enforce the sanction of reward, i. 210 
which is only to be supplied by religion i. 216 

mutual stipulations between magistrate and people on 

entering into - - - i. 21 1 

the purpose of its institution - - - - ii. 267 

the extent of its care - ii. 268 

invented for intractable spirits - - - iii. 2 
Society, religious, the end of its institution - - ii. 269 

sovereign and independent on the civil - ibid. 

not possessed of any civil coactive power - - ii. 270 

the object of its care - ii. 271 
Socinittns, examination of their opinion concerning the death 

of Christ - - vi. 300 

Socrates,, revkvv of the dispute between him and Aristo- 

" ""phanes. - i. 156 

why he declined initiation into the mysteries - ii. 50 

remarks on the latter part of his conduct - - iii. 17 

the first who called off philosophy from the contemplation 

of nature to morals - - iii. 45 

the only Greek philosopher who really believed a future 

state of rewards and punishments - - iii. 47 

the method of his philosophy - - iii. 52 

note on the effect of the poison iii. 357. 
Socratic method of disputing, what so called - - iii. 52 
Solomon, alludes to the mysteries in the book of Ecclesiasticus, 

chap. iv. ver. 17,18 - ii. 153 

his violations of the Mosaic law remarked - * iv. 262 

his prayer at the dedication of the Temple illustrative of 
the particular providence over the Jewish nation, v. 135 

in his prayer at the dedication of the Temple, requests 

only a continuance of temporal rewards and punish 
ments - v. 159 

how perverted to idolatry - v. 343 
Solomon s Sting, a representation of Christ s union and mar 
riage with the church - v. 470 

Sophists, Greek, some account of - - iii. 53 

Soul, the several senses in which the ancients conceived the 

permanency of it - iii. 14 

its future existence in a state of rewards -and punishments 

taught, but disbelieved by the philosophers, iii. 15 

Cicero s idea of - iii. 114 
an enquiry into our conceptions of - - iii. 348 

three species of, admitted by the ancients - - iii. 150 

opinions of various philosophers - iii. 168 

the opinions of the philosophers on the immortality 

^ of - iii. 383 

the sentiments of the Jews concerning, under the 

law - - - v. 196 

examination of the notion of the sleep of - - v. 198 



Soul, the mention of its future existence by Moses, and by 
following writers, to be distinguished - v. 2x36 

immaterial, common to the whole animal creation, v. 384 

living, in what sense to be understood as used in the his 

tory of the creation of man - v. 385 

enquiry into the nature of - vi. 251 

different opinions on the - - vi. 349 
Speech, the origin and history of - * - iv. 133^ 
the early acquisition of, by Adam and Eve - vi. 244 
Spencer -, an examination of the argument of his treatise, 

De Theocratia Judaica - v. 93 

examination of Sykes s defence of his argument, v. 252 
Spinozists, their opinion of the human soul - - iii. 149 
Spiritual courts, the end and use of - ii. 277 
Slate, its inducements to seek an alliance with the 

Church - ii. 272 

what it communicates to the Church - - ii. 283 

what it receives from the Church - - ii. 285 

its conduct where it includes more than one religion, ii. 287 
Statues, the first rise of worshipping, in human form, iv. 236 
Stebbing, Dr. an examination of his objection to the argu 
ment of the Divine Legation of Moses - - iii. 318 

his arguments of Moses s Divine Legation,, equally apppli- 
cable to Mahomet - v. 155 

* his exposition of Levit. xviii. 5, examined - v. 40* 

an examination of his Considerations on the command to 
Abraham to offer up Isaac - - vi. 24. 155. 162, 163. 
171, 172, 173. 178. 181. 187. 192. 104. 197, 198. 
Stilling fleet, his opinion of the Egyptian hieroglyph ics,iv. 147 
Stoics, their practice contrary to their principles - i. 267 

their notions of death - iii. 103 

their opinions of the soul - - iii. ] 66 
Stoical renovation, what - - iii. 105 
Strabo, his opinion concerning the institution of the mys 
teries - - ii. 32 

his opinion as to the necessary religious doctrines by 

which to govern and restrain the multitude - iii. 10 

his account of the Mosaic doctrine of the Deity, iii. 171 
Stratonicean, whether the principles of, capable of dis 
tinguishing the moral difference between virtue and 
vice - *- * i. 241 

Suicide, why consigned by Virgil to purgatory .- ii. 12(3 

condemned in the Eleusinian mysteries, and by Vir 

gil ... = ii. 166 

authors who have written against it - - - ii. 365 
Sulpicius, his reflections on the sight of Grecian ruins, i. 153 
Sun, the various names under which it was worshipped, iii. 284 
Superstition, in ancient history accounted for - - i. 312 
whence derived, and the cure of it ^ - ii. 260 



Superstition, whether preferable to atheism - - iii. 226 

examination of Plutarch s parallel between - iii. 229 

of Lord Bacon s parallel between it and Atheism, iii. 253 
Swift) his observations on Toland and Asgill - - ii. 263 
Sykes, his answer to a censure passed on Spencer s opinion 

of the Jewish Theocracy considered, v. 252. 259. 2(v$. 267 
his notion concerning the double senses of the Scripture 
prophecies, examined - vi. 66 

Symbols, and allegories of ancient Paganism, for what pur 
pose introduced - - iii. 289 

their revolution from being employed for contrary pur 

poses to their primitive designation, pointed out, iv. 166 

and type, their difference explained - vi. 289 
Synesius, Bishop of Ptolemais, some account of - iii. iq6 
allegorises the resurrection - . - iii. 197 
System and hypothesis, the human mind naturally hvcfmed 

to - ;f r \ *r - iv. Sa 


Tacitus, his character of the Jews and Christians - ii. 315 

his opinion of the Jewish Religion ^ < < iv. 37 

his account of the ancient Theban monuments, iv. 146 
Tages, the Etruscan god, how found - iv. 213 
Talismans, greatly venerated by the Mahometans, iv. 176 

what they were - - iv. 415 
Tartarus, observations on Virgil s account of - - ii. 125 

who consigned to - . - -.. ii. 137 
Taylor, Dr. examination, of his account of the origin of 

persecution - - iv. 35 

Tettmachus, why he refused the horses of Menelaus, iv. 264 
TertuUian, his account of the origin of heresies - iii. 109 
Test Law, whence it took its birth - - ii. 288 

- copy of the test oath of Athens - - ii. 202 

Thebans, account of the sacred band - - ~ ii. 03 
Theistical opinion, concerning the human soul - iii. 149 
Theseus, exposition of his descent into hell - ii. 09. 139 
Theocratic government of the Jews, the reasons and conve- 

niencies of - - - v. 3. 29 

every subject a priest under - - v. 21 

particular enquiry into the circumstances of, v. 22. 74 

why willingly received by them - v. 35 
how long subsisting - / * 1 ; - v. 83 

when abolished * I v. 96 
necessarily including an extraordinary providence, v. 117 
. illustrated from Solomon s prayer at the dedication of the 

Temple >* - - - - v. 136 

from Ezekiel * W - v. 137 
from Amos - ibid. 



Theocratic government of the Jem, Dr. Sykes s answer to the 

censure passed on Spencer, considered - - v. 252 

Theology, natural, the obligations flowing from, as given by 

Lord Bolingbroke - - - ii. 252 

Theology, Pagan, three systems of - - ii. 25 

Theopompus, the common source from which both Ovid and 

Virgil borrowed,, and wherein they erred in deviation 

from him - - iii. 73 

Timteus, his exposition of the ancient Metempsychosis, iii. 78 

To E v, not an Egyptian notion - iii. 174 

derived from Pherecydes Syrus - - - Hi. 179 
Toland, character of his Pantheisticon - - iii. 26$ 
Toleration, juster notions of it entertained by the ancients 

than by the moderns - - ii. 298 

two principal causes inducing a large and full allowance 

of by the ancient lawgivers - - ii. 290 

the Romans careful not to infringe it, in their edict 

against the Bacchanalian rites - ii. 323 

universal, among all the ancient nations, and why - iv. 59 
Toyman, at Bath, pertinent story of - vi. 105 
Traditions, mistaken presumption to strengthen the autho 
rity of, by the church of Rome - v. 183 

never made use of by Christ in support of his character, vi-9 
Treason, high, observations on the laws of forfeitures in 

cases of - - v. 169 
Trismegistus, history of the Books forged in the name of, iii. 187 

Truth, whether possible to be made ridiculous - i. 152 

reason the best test of - i. 159 

reason and ridicule considered in the trial of - i. 184 

reasons for veiling it in mysteries - - ii. 15 
~~ and utility, their coincidence, and the mutual proof they 

afford of each other - - - -iii. 217 

enquiry into what it is - vi. 214 
Turnns, remarks on the character of, in the ^Eneis - ii. 86 
Types, the meaning of ascertained - - vi. 45 
derivation of - . . _ vi. 48 

argument deduced from the general passion for - vi. 101 

retained by Mr. Whiston s opinion, whilst he rejects 

double senses - - vi. 201 

Type and symbol, their difference explained - - vi. 289 

Typhon, the fable of, explained - iv. 189. 225 

Tyrants, ancient, great encouragers of religion, and from 

what motives - i. 318 

U. V. 

Vane, Sir Harry, his character - - iii. 26*3 

Vedam, the antiquity of it - iv. 366 

Vine-tree^ Ezekiel s prophecy of it, explained - v. 5 



Vigils, supposed to have originated from the Eleusinian 
mysteries - - ii. 6& 

suppressed on the same account - - ibid. 

Virgil, an exposition of his allegory of the descent of .ZEneas 
to the shades - ii. 78 

an enquiry into the nature of the JEneid - - ibid. 

remarks on his destroying the myrtle which dropped 

blood - - ii. Si 

^ remarks on his making ships become deities of the sea, ii. 84 

remarks on the character of Turnus - ^ - ii, 86" 

remarks on the character of Dido - - ii. 87 

remarks on Voltaire s criticism on this story - ii. 8$ 
- remarks on his account of the court of Evander - ii. 89 
- remarks on the Episode of Nisus and Euryaius - ii. 91 

recommends adoption ... - ii. 92 
explanation of the Golden Bough - - ii. 10$ 
^ his account of the mysteries of Mythras - - ii. 214 
exposition of his character of Charon - ii. 122 
> explanation of the dog Cerberus - ii. 123 

comment on his topography of the infernal regions, ii. 125 
remarks on the episodes of Dido and Deiphobus - ii. 135 
- his description of Elysium compared with that of 

Homer - ii. 146 

- infected with Spinozism - - ii. 159 

remarks on his description of the shield of /Eneas - ii. 160 
Virtue, three different excitements to - i. 233 

natural and moral obligations to, distinguished i. 244 

an enquiry into the nature of, u^jder a dispensation of 

rewards and punishments ;- * - v. 238 

Unity of the Deity taught in the Eleusinian mysteries, {1.149. 151 
Universality, the want of no objection against the truth of 
the Mosaic dispensation - iii. 340 

Voltaire, remarks on his criticism on the Dido of Virgil, ii. 88 
examination of his method of accounting for the perse 
cuting spirit among Christians - ii. 374 
- examifiation of his objections to the argument of the 
Divine Legation of Moses - - iii. 315 
- his account of the Chinese method of printing - iv. 380 
his account of the Mosaic dispensation, examined - v. 6 
- his misrepresentation of Judea, refuted ii -o v. 13 

some mistakes in his treatise on toleration, noted - v. 276 
his opinion of the origin of human sacrifices, confuted, vi-357 

his accusation of the Jews sacrificing a whole nation, 

examined - . <! /4 * - vi. 376 

Voice of the sign, origin of - - iv. 133 

Vossius, his account of the origin of idolatry, refuted, iv.ipS 
Votes, the origin and obligation of, considered - - vi. 362 

the command that " rtone devoted shall be redeemed, 

examined V a -^ , - 71.363 


Vozos, Jephthah s rash vow considered - - vi. 367 

Utility, indicative of truth - - iii. 217 

Vulcan, Sir Isaac Newton s account of - - iv. 258 

compared with that of Homer - - ibid, 


Wants of mankind, real and fantastic, enquiry into, and the 
effects of - - i. 277 

War, the different situations of countries for the use of in 
fantry and cavalry - - iv. 263 

Warburton, answer to the objections of the chancellor of 
Gottingen - - iii. 202 

motives for writing " The Alliance between Church and 

State," - - iv. 6 

Will, the foundation of morality - - i. 248 

William the Conqueror and King Arthur, the similarity of 

the outlines of their characters - iv. 222 

William qfNe&bourgi his character of Pope Gregory VIII. vi. 1 08 
Witsius, his arguments for the Egyptian ritual being borrowed 

from the Jews, examined - - iv. 301 

critique on his ^Egyptiaca - - iv. 323 
Wives, strange or idolatrous, bad consequences of the fond 
ness the Jews had for them, shewn - - v. 341 

Wollaston, his mistake in establishing the principles of mora 
lity, explained - - i. 253 
Words, mischief attending the improper use of them - i. 254 
Works, no justification by, under the Gospel - - v. 437 
Writing, history of thwart of - iv. 116 
Writings, ancient, marks of forgery in - - i. 329 


Youth, adopted, the strength of ancient states - - ii. 92 


Zaleucus, his real existence, and the authenticity of his re 
mains, defended against Bentley - - i. 324 

extract from his preface - - i- 339 

notes on a passage in i. 353 
Zeno y his philosophic character - iii. 101 
Zoroastes, the various opinions of the learned who he was, iv.366 

of Hyde and Prideaux, discredited - - v. 41 
Zosimus, his relation how the Eleusinian mysteries came to be 

excepted in Valentian s edict against nocturnal assem 
blies - - ii>57 



The Divine Legation; 


I N D E X. 

A BEN EZRA, vol. iv. p. 111. 
159 vol. v. p. 162 
Abennephi - - - - iv. 21 1 
Abraham Ekell - - - vi. 153 
Abul-Feda - - - n. 361.366 
Acosta - iv. 14. 117. 123. 126 
Atldison, i. 150 ii. 81. 135. 173. 

vi. 201 

Adrian the Sophist - - iii. 71 
,lian, iii/ 30. 38. 86 . 181 

iv. 186 . 228 
,schylus, i. 500. 349 ii. 320. 

iv. 372 

^sop - v. 44-9 

*tius vi. 396 

Africanus - - - ii. 356 . 359 
Agelius ------ iii. 5] 

Ahijah ------ vi. 33 

Akenside - - - - i. 181 
Albinus - ii. 170 iii. 89, 90 
Albo, Rabbi Joseph - - vi. 84 
Alcoran ----- iv. 266 

Alembert, d - i. 280 ii. 348 
Ambrose ----- ii. 281 

Ammianus Marcellinus, i. 336 - 

ii. 69 iii. 176 iv. 145. 296 
Amos, iv. 172. 291. 341 v. 147. 

318 vi. 81 

Anaxagoras, ii. 233. 252 iii. 25 
Andocide* ----- i. 321 
AndocJes - - - - ii. -5 

Antoninus Marcus, Emperor, 

ii. 315. 381 iii. 104. ISO. 

16 7 

Antonius Liberalis - - iv. 190 
Apion - - - v. 252. 257, 258 
Apollodorus, i. 315 ii. 159 

iv. 372 

Apollonius, ii. 118. 124 iv. 92 
Apollonius Rhodius - - ii. 98 
Apollonius Tyaneus - - ii. 65 
ApuJeius, i. 14.0 ii. 13.. 48, 4p. 

70, 71. 78. 102. 108. 146 . 157. 

16 3. 16*9. 171, 172. 349. 36>. 

iii. 107. 143. 186. 284 iv. 10t>. 

127. 145. 152. 16*6. 244.375. 

409 vi. 114 

Araleus - - - - iv. 196 
Arbuthnot - - - - i. 159 

Ariosto ii. 207 

Aristides, ii. 6. 12. 59- 142. 144, 

147. 149. 158. 160 
Aristophanes, i. 188. 239. 300 

ii. 8. 12. 16, 17- 46. 72. 74. 

100. 143. 193. 321 iii. 285 

iv. 11 
Aristotle, i. 205, 206. 240. 318, 

324 ii. 22, 80. 2l6. 268. 2/6\ 

iii. 22. 34. 40. 96. 100. 140. 

142. 163. 176 iv. 171. 228 

v. 135. 160 

Arnauld ----- v. 443 


Arnobius, i. 195 ii. 4. 175 

iii. 157- l6l. 294. 360 
Arrian - ii. 11 iii. 167 iv, 228 
Artemidorus - ii. 189 i v ISO 
Astruc - - - - iv. 287. 412 

Athenaeus ----- iii. 310 

Athenagoras - ii. 48. 50..337 
Atterbury, Bishop - ii. 167 
Atticus ------ i. 273 

Augustin, St. i. 311 ii, 11. 16. 

22. 26. 185. 354. 387 iii. 19- 

58. 124. 16 1. 200. 302. 36l 

iv. 50. 156. 206. 4-26 vi. 2 

Aulus Gellius - - - iv. 254 

Aurelius Marcus, ii. 170 iv. 37 

Ausonius - - iii. 374 iv. 245 


Bacon, Lord Chancellor, i. 203 

iii. 63. 246. 248. 233 iv. 68. 

455 vi. 119. 225. 231. 252 

Bacon, Roger - - - - v. 481 

Banier, i. 349 ii. 107 iii. 66. 

77 iv. 427 
Barfceyrac ----- ii. 364 

Barnes iii. 395 

Baronius - - - - ii. 75. 352 
Barrow, Dr. - - - - ii. 249 
Barthius - - - - - ii. 170 
Basilius ----- ii. 354 
Bale, Julius - - - - iv. 28 
Baxter, iv. 418 v. 200. 385 

vi. 241. 349 

Bayle, i. 220. 241. 26l. 278. 299- 

310. 326 ii. 122. 129. 322 

iii. 173. 226. 392 vi. 111. 


Beausobre - - iii. 190 iv. 415 
Behmen ----- vi. 350 
Bellarmine - - - - ii. 60 
Bembine Table, iv. 150. 153. 199. 

374. 424 
Bentley, i. 324. 332. 351, 352, 

353 ii. 369 iii. 21. 370 

iv. 411 vi. 328 

Berkley ----- v. 184 
Bernier - - - - ii. 309. 373 
Berosus - - - - - ii. 116 
Black well - - - - - iii. 207 
Blanchini ----- i. 148 
Bleterie - - - - - iv. 431 
Blount - - - * iii. 210 . 218 

Bochart - iv. 158. 421. 427. 432 
Boeotiiis - - - - ii. 43. 123 

Boeus ------ iii. 71 

Bolingbroke, i. 166. 290 ii. 211 
iii. 318. 355 iv. 8- 306. 3o7 
v. 19- 30. 65. 73. 75. 174. 271. 
426 vi. 130. 205. 352 
Bossu ------ ii. 80 

Bosuet ----- vi. 385 

Bouiller - - - - vi. 167. 207 

Boulain Villiers, Comte de, i. 305 
Bryant - - - - - - vi. 352 

Buckingham, Duke of - i. 147 
Bull, Bishop - - v. 442. 445 
Bullet ------ iv. 414 

Burlamaqui - - - i. 252. 254 
Burm;t, iii. 31. 178 iv. 275. 444 
Butler - i. 156 ii. 2l6 iv. 275 


Caecilius - ii. 69 

Ca3sar - - - iii. 41 iv. 429 
Calisthenes ----- iii. 71 
Callimachus - ii. 54 iv. 254 
Calmet, v. 172. 246. 330. 368, 

369. 446 
Capitolinus - - - ii. 169, 170 
Cardan - i. 220. 275 iii. 255 
Careri - - - - - - iv. 117 

Caitesius iii. 177 

Casaubon, ii. 75. 352 iii. 167- 

192. 356 iv. 227 
Casbiodorus - - - - iv. 176 

Cassius i. 273 

Castellio v. 409 

Cato - - - - iii. 42. 363 

Catrou iii. 75 

Caylus - - - - - - iv. 386 

Celsus, ii. 68. 115. 125. 350. 312. 
iii. 97. 102. 106. 135. 178. 197. 
373 iv. 48, 49. 100. 104. 106. 
v. 49. 257. 478 

Cervantes - - ii. 215 iii. 39S 
Chaeremon - - - - - iv. 370 

Charlevoix, ii. 36l. 389 iii. 67. 

iv. 119 
Chill ingworth - - - - v. 324 

Choisi, Abbe de - - - ii. 373 
Chrysippus - - - ii. 31 iii. 96 
Clirysostom, ii. 354. 381 vi. 18. 
o2. 326. 328 

Chubb v. 266 




Cicero, i. 149. 171. 210. 267. 

275. 301. 307. 325. 328. 3.30 . 

34-2 ii. ,- 7, 8. 29, 30. 33. 39, 

40. 52. 53. 57. 6*1. 65. 79/89. 

92. 96". 103. 126 . 151. 159. 16*2. 

299, 300. 320, 321. 335. 338, 

339, 34-0. 348. 353. 359. 365. 

371. 386 iii. 19. 45. 4-7. 50. 

51. 56Y60. 84. 86". 90. 100, 101. 

107* 136*. 140. 151. 153. 159. 

.179. 195. 215. 268. 310.36*3. 

36*7. 370. 373, 374, 375, 3/6. 

398 iv. 49. 59- 6*1. 66". 110. 

131. 155. 171. 194. 411. 422. 

426 v. 171. 178. 273 vi.104 
Clarius ------ v . 377 

Clarke, i. 1.5.9. 253 ii. 215. 239, 

240, 241. 248 iii. 386" v. 200. 

228. 287- 385. 395 vi. 24-1. 
, 349 

Cliiuclian - - - i. 218 ii. 109 
Clemens Alexandrinus, i. 326 

ii. 15. 20. 31, 32. 45. 48. 6"4. 

66". 78. P9. 108, 347 iii. 37. 

107. 174. 179. 285 iv. 104. 

120. 136". 141. 150. 157, 158. 

226". 304/319. 390. 397. 400. 

4-10. 418. 426* 
Clerc, le, ii. 49. 351. 355. 376 

iii. 81 iv. 1C). 133. 395). ^7 

v. 85. 92. 10*3. 197. 409. 417 

vi. 23(5 

Cocceius - - - iv. 02 v. 341 
Codrus ------ i. 14,3 

Codurcus - - - v. 313, 314 
Collins, i. 159. 172. 175 iv. 16". 

395. _44-6 v. 38. 16 2. 200 

vi. 11. 43. 77. 135. 138.200. 

204. 206*. 351 

Compte, M. le - - iv. 124. 409 
Conduniine - ii. 331 iv. 413 
Condillac - - - iv. 41 1. 41.5 
Cornelius Nepos - - - ii. 34.5 
Cutta ------ ii. 341 

Coward - - - iii. 216 iv. 4 

<- ruig i. 194 

Crinitus, P. - ii. 364 iv. 413 

Critias - - hi. 019. 074. 392 

, Croze, M. la - - - - iii. 194 

Cjewphon - - - iii. lij i 

Cudworth, iii. 152. 16*3. 16*8, 16*9. 

178. 192. 214. 299 iv. 197. 

36"7 vi. 113 

Cumberland - iv. 24-7. 368. 375 
Cuper ...... i. 19 

Cyprian - - - ii. 28 iv. 426* 
Cyrillus - - - - ii. 172. 30* 


Dacier, Mr. ii. 156. 364 iii. SU 


Daniel, iv, 169. 172 vi. 19. 342 
Dassovius - - - - - iv. 19 
Daubuz, iv. 214. 418, 419 vi. 8* 

David, King, iv. 169 v. 50. 145. 

179- 182. 262. 407 
Davies ..... iii. 110 
Demetrius Phalareus, ii. 15 

iv. 168. 386* 

Democritus - iii. 386 iv. 159 
Demosthenes - - - - ii. 293 
Diagoras ----- i. 273 
Diodorus Siculus, i. 315. 317* 

324, 325, 326 ii. 3. 41. 52, 

53. 70,71.73, 74.96. U9. 128. 

134. 306". 317. 339- 355 iii. 29. 

258. 276". 283 iv. 88. 90. 92. 

98. 113. 146. 148. 150. 154. 

157. 171. 189- 191. 1.94. 223, 

224. 229. 233. 245, 246. 250. 

257. 283. 304. 3/2. 407. 414. 

421. 425, 437 
Diogenrs Laertius, i. 337 ii. 47. 

6 g iii. 30. 56. 60. 80. 88. 156. 

160. 182. 191. 291. 36*8- iv. 

1 59. 249, 250 

Dion Cassius - ii. 326 iii. 38O 
Dion Chrysostom - ii. 46, 47. 


Dioiiysius the African - - ii. 5 
Dionysius Halicarnassus, ii. 21. 

54." 91. 161. 310. 324. 349. 353, 

354 iii. 271 iv. 253 
Dionysius, Thracicus - ii. 108 
Dodwell, iv. 4-i-O* v. 47 vi. 220 
Donatus ----- iii. ISO 
Dorotheas - - - - iii. 71 
Drusius * - - - v. 197. 377 
Dryden - - - i. 144 v. 449 
Dudley - - ... iii. 36*2 

Edda Snorro - - - - iv. 207 

Egcde - ii, 388 iv. 4Q8. 414 

G & Xkell 

A U T II O n S, &c. CITED IK 

Kkcll - - - - - - vi. 153 

KHhu ..... v. 315,316 

Klipliaz - - - - v. 310. 314- 

Enfant, I ..... ii. 377 

Epicharmus - iii. 84 vi. 220 
Epictetus, ii. 9. 11 iii. 39. 103. 


Epicurus, i. 273 iii. 75. 84. 179 
3ipiphanes ----- ii, 3 

Epipbanius ----- iv. 369 

Fpiscopius - - - v* 4 16\ 441 
Kraiinuft, iii. 305 iv. 12 vi. 18 
Euclid ------ iii. 175 

Euhernerus, 30. 5l iii, 268. 

U87.. 292 iv, 20?. 4*26 
Eunapius - - ^ ii. 27 iii. 28 
Knpolemus - iv. 371 

Euripides, i. 30O ii. 5. 12. 15. 

21. 59. 100. 105. 120. 154 

iii, 392 v. 454 vi. 4 
llusebius, i. 351 ii. 34. 36. 51. 

306*. 316 . 342. 356, 357. 37 1. 

376 iii. 23. 87. 89. 136. 162. 

185. 190. 275. 283, 284. 290. 

360 iv. 38. 69. 72. 74. 122. 

149. 158 t 159. 204. 210. 228. 

3f6. 422. 426 vi. 39* 113. 


qtJtathUis - - - iv, 376. 390 
E Yemenis - - - - - i. 273 
Evreinoiid, St. - - - ii. 85 
Ezekiel, iv.. SO. 134. 139- 167- 

289. 2.Q2. 305. 331. 425. 443 

v. 4, 5. 12. 60. 63. 119- 135. 

137. 145. 165. 10 9. 172. 263. 

272. 275. 353 vi. 45. 90,91- 

127- 133. 17!;. 360 
Ezra, \. 131. 324, 325. So2. 342, 

543. 348, 349, 350, 351. 454. 

4y2 vi. 151 

Fabricius, ii. 6 5. SIS. 377 iii. 

89- U3 
Fauistus ------ v. 149 

Felton ...... v. 379 

Vunton -- *--- iv. 255 
Terrnicus -----< ii. 14 

Ticinus, Marcilius - - iii. 214 
Fleuri - - - ii. 170 iv. 412 
FonteneHe - - iii. 29. 16. 259 
Foster - - - - - - v. tf JO 

Fourmont, iv. 15<). 184. 211. 

385. 427. 432. 438 
Frfiind - - .... vi. 396 
Freret - iv. 128. 430 v. 


Gagnier ------ ii. 366 

(iaile - - i. 180 iv. 367. 402 
Galen, ii. 33 iii. 22. 39 iv. 109 
Garcillasso - - - - iv. 4?9 

Gassendi ----- iii. 150* 

Gatakrr iii. J67 

GaubiJ iv. 129 

Gaodeutius - - - - ii. 354 

Geddes ------ iii. 37 *? 

Gelling, Atilus- - - - ii. 140 

Geoft ry of Alonmoath - iv. 414 
Gordon - - - - - - iv. 374 

Grevius ----- iii. 309 

Gregorius Ka/ien, ii. 11 iii. 6 2 

iv. 391 

Gregorius Magnus - - ii. 35i 
Grey, v. 321. 451. 454. 45?;. 476* 
Gronovius ----- iii. 24 
Grotrus, ii. 272 iv. 170. 327 

v. 170. 305. 320. 36*9. 395i 

416. 441. 469 vi. 79. S5. 126. 

G niter ------ ii. 386* 

Gurgnes - * - - - i v . 3S 


Habakku-k, iv. 173 v. 400. 430 
Uaggai - v. 96. 333. ^67. 37 / 
liaidt, M. du - iv. 123. 174. 179 
Hales ------ v. 480 

Hammond- - iv. 368 v. 409 
Hardouin - - - >i. 150. 155 
Hare, Bishop, i. 145 iv. 169 

v. 129- 409,410 

Herateus ----- i. S5O 
Heliodorus - - - iv. 159 
Hellanicus ----- iv. 410* 
Hennepin - - - - - ii. 383 
Heiaclittis - - i. 320 iv. 13t> 
Herbelot - - T. 293, 294. 389 
Herbert, Lord - - - - i. 219 
Hereclictes Ponticu* - - iii. 29-1 
Hermapion - - - - - iv. 148 
Hermes Tneincgifitas, ii. 338 

iii, 187. 191 IT. 148 




IZcrmias ----- iii. 162 
Hermippus - - - - - i, 315 
Herodotus, i. ISO. 307. 336, 350. 

ii. 42. 70. lip. 30-1 iii. 29. 60. 

180. 271. 276*. 233 iv, SO. 9). 

94, 95, 96- 101, 102. 109. 114. 

136. 157. lO l. 164. 182. 136. 

189. 191. 227. 231. 237, 238. 

24-6. 249, 250. 253. 267. 270. 

285. 290. 371. 392. 407. 431. 

vi. 168, 169 
Hesiod, i. 266 iv, 203. 239.369. 

395. 408 

Hesychius - - i. 180 iv. 92 
Jlezekiali - - - - - v. 180 

Hicesius - - - - - ii. 179 

Hierocles - - - - - ill. 184 

Ilieronynms - - - - ii. 313 

liigden - - - - - - v. 123 

liimerius - - - - - ii. 152 

Hippocrates, iii. 39 iv. 97. 104. 

107. Ill, 112 

Jlippolitus ii. 139 

Ilippon ------ i. 273 

Hispala ------ ii. 64 

Hoadley ----- j v . 7 

Hobbes, i. l6 />. 204.246.319 

iv. 31 v. 123. 215 -vi. 109. 

147, 14S 

Holstenius ----- iv. 397 
Homer, i. 276. 317 ii. 78, 79, 

80. 120. 146. 154. 359 iii. 60. 

180. 292 iv. 97. JOO. 203. 

235). 252, 253, 254. 36 p. 390. 

396. 410. 434 v. 283, 284 
Hooke ------ vi. 209 

Hooker, i. 202. 205. 248 iii. 

311. 329 v. 154 vi. 124. 

Horace, ii. 112. 156 v. 468 

vi. 71. 154 
Ilorapollo, ii. 14. 132 iii. 186. 

277 iv. 120. 144. 149. 151. 

166. 172 422 
Iloseu, iv. 312 -v. 55). 89. 166. 

341 vi. 8. 15J3 
lioubigant, iv. 453 v. 318. 456. 

vi. 21 

Jlouteville - - - - - v. 101 
Hudibras - - .- - - v. 201 
Huet - - iii. 65 iv. 427 . 43-2 
iluntington - - - - iv. 152 

Hurd - 
Hyde - - 

- - - - vi. 201 

- - - - iv. 3.92 
- iv. 366 v. 41 

- ii. 140 iv. 274 

I. J. 

Jablonski - - ii. 335 iv, 421 

Jackson - - ii. 209 iv. 407 

Jamblichus, i. 333, 334. 337. 351. 

ii. 62. 144. 208. 354 iii. 38. 

57, 58, 59- 90. 175. 189, 190. 
193 iv. 107. 120. 197.418 

James - - - - - - vi. 311 

Jameson - - - iv. 370. 372 
Jarchi v. 162 

Jeremiah, iii. 345 iv. 95. 133. 

137. 294. 299- 458 v. 50. 55. 

63. 147, 15Q. 165. 171. ISO. 

272. 324. 343. 410 vi. 19. 79- 

88, S9. 133. 360 
Jerom, ii. 68 iii. 60. 131, 134. 

161. 261 iv. 410. 425 v. 318. 

329 vi. 2:3. 225 

Job v. 178, 179 

John, vi. 19. 65. 179. 273. 317. 

342. 352 

Johnson ----- iii. 308 
4onson, Ben. - - - - v. 471 

Joiiville i. 331 

Jortin * - - . . . iv. 135 
Josephus, ii. 7. 318. 358 iii. 86. 

iv. 168. 253. 370 v. 65. 78. 

133. 248. 252. 257 
Joshua - - - iv. 292 v. 54 

Jotliam iv. 167 

Irenes, iii. 158 iv. 159-369 

v. 279 
Isaiah, iv. 370. .375. 419 v. 55. 

58. 6l, 62. 136, 137. 146, 147. 
159. 312. 3 16. S59. 380 vi. 51. 
79. 82. 345. 36l 

Isocrates, ii. 54. 59. 277 iii. 3.9 

Jude - - v. 1J)9 

jjulian, ii. 303. 3l6. 320. 382 j 

iii. 9, 99 iv. 38 vi. 6l ~ W> 
Julius i ennicus - ii. 30 iv. 4?6 
Justin - ii. 345 iv. 254. 37<> 
Justin Martyr, ii. 78. l/ 2 iii. 158. 

v. 36 

Justinian ----- iii. 381 
o G 2 Kaitnt 5. 



Kaimes, Lord - - - - i. 181 
Kircher, iv. 124. 147. 150. 176. 

1.97. 199- 296. 373, 374. 386. 

398. 408 vi. 100 
Kimchi - - - - - iv. 334 
Kuster- ----- iv. 397 


JLactantius, i. 167. 195 iii. 101. 

131. 13 i. 137- 139. 147. 360 

iv. 285 v. 305 vi. 202 

Lafitau - - - - - iv. 413 

Larnpridius - - - - ii. 378 

Lardner vi. 3.91 

Lavaur - - - - iii. 66 

Law - - - - iv. 6 S vi. 3.50 
Leland ----- v . 408 
Leonard - - - - - iv. 370 
Libanius - - - - - ii. 0. 75 
Liberalis - - - - iii. 71- 7 6 
Liciniug ^Iftcianus - - iv. 411 
Limborch, iv. 14. 17 v. 258. 

275 vi. 225 

Linus - - - - - Hi. 1.91 
Livy, ii. 63. 91. 140. l65. 293. 
300. 321, 322.3.50. 360. 387- 
iii. J9. 259. 397 vi. 277 
ocke,*i. 162. 174. 182, 205. 260 
jft ii. 76. 268-rr-iv. 212 v. 455 

vi. 154. 258. 321. -540 
J.ucan - - ii. 34. 369- iv. 177 
Luke - vi. 330. 32 

Lucian, i. 303 ii. 13. 31. 51. f. s. 
75. 112. 136. 15.9. 182. >? I 
iii. 48. 105 iv. 189. 195. 52.5, 
421 v. 2 
Lucretius - i. 263 iii. 12. 85. 


Lucullus, - ii. 0.) in. o.). :>/ 5 
Lysias ------ ii. 7- 


Mabillon - - - - ii r 379 

Machiavel - i. 319- -ii. 276 
Macrobius, ii. 40. 91-97. 16*9 

iii. 23. 284 iv. 180. 450 
llagaillans - - - - iv. 130 
Mahomet - - - - ii. 36 l 

Maimonides, iv. If. 19/82. 134. 

301. 328. 352. 460 v. 140. 

301. 305. 328.451. 471 
Malachi, v. 96. 147. 330, 334. 

336. 34?. 344. 349. 364. 367. 

377 vi. 78 

Malebraneh - - - - iii. 370 
Manasseh Ben Israel, v. 378. 3;97. 


Mandeville, i. 239. 281 vi. Ill 
Manetho, ii. 558, 359 iv. 104 

159. 165.358, 359.453. 
Mann - - - r - -iv. 218 
Manulius - - - - - iii. 110 

Marsilius Ficinus - - iv. 415 
Marinus - , - - - iij. 20 
Mark ------ vi. 175 

Marsham, ii, 42, 121. 343.356, 

357. 359 iv. 82. 89. 164. 176. 

228. 301. 319. 401. 454 v. 251 

vi. 37. 1 60. 354 
Martinius ----- iv. 126 
Matthew, v. J0. 403 vi. 189- 

32.9.331, 332 

Maxinms Tyrius - i. 321 iv. 50 
Mead - - r iv. 4-46- - vi. 392 

Mclampus - - - - iy. ]05 

i Mclanthius - - - ii. 178, 179 

| Menago - - - - - iv. 412 

Mt naiider- - - - - ii. 179 

Merriiriiis Trisinenisles, ii, 113 

Mf-Lrodorus - - - - }ii. 29! 

Mfiirs-ius - - - - ii. 49. 7-S 

Micah, iv. 173--vi. 355. 37 J, 

. 574. 

M idnk ton, i. 100 iii. 366.376-- 
iv. ! 5. 456. 46(> v. .106 vi. 53. 
2 (). 260. 262. 321. 343, 341. 

: Milion, ii. 95. 16*8. 3(>9, 370. 372, 

iv. 243 
Minufius, Felix, ii. 337. 37 1 ? 372. 

iii. 289 iv. 55 vi. 144 
Moliere ----- v . C66 
Montaine - - - i. 26; } 

Montesquieu, i. 194 ii. 308 

iii. 555. 
Moor ------ iii. 166 

Morgan - - iv. 1.5. 366 vi. 43 
Mosheim, ii. 067 iii. 36 4, 365 

v. 482 


V I N E L E G A T I O V. 


Movie - 
3 lu ret - 

- ii. 379 iii 363 
.--_-. iv. 431 

- - i. 3oo ii. 149 


Xeedham - - - iv. 3$?. 385. 
Nehemiah, T. 13!, 324. 334, 335. 

342,343.346", 347. 3/0. 

Nemesius iii. t65 

Nevochirn .... iv. 134 
Newton, Sir Isaac, i. 308 ii. 2 If). 

359 iii. 173. 1?6\ 270 iv. 80. 

203.215. 227. 230. 242. 245. 

247- 254. 367. 428. 440 - 

v. 160 vi. 65, 113. 124,293. 

323. 348 
Nicander ----- iii. 71 

Nicanor ------ i. 273 

Nicepliorus, Greg. - - ii. 15 
Nonnus - - ii. 54. 114. vi. 32 
Norden ----- ir. 404 

Numenius ----- iii. 89 

Ocellus Lucanuts - i. 332. 352 
Oldmixon ----- i. 327 
Orijirn, ii. 4. 6l , 62. 68. 1 15. 3 1 2. 

350lit. 31. 31. 51. 97- 102. 

105. 107. 135. 150. 179. . ">. r >, S 

iv. 4.9- v. 45). 172. 257 vi. .95) 
Oribusius - - - vi. 396 

Orohin - iii. 324 iv. 17. 20, 21 
Orpheus - i. 333 ---ii. 45, 46". 66 
Otter, Tom - - - - iv. 1.96 
Oiitrain - v. 1<)5 

Ovid, ii. S3. <)0. 108. 146 . 173. 

366 iii. (T I . (it). 7 1 . 7;> - iv. 1 uo. 

206 . 253 vi. 116 


Pacviviamis - - iii. 151 

Paltphatcs - - ii!. 64. 76 

Parennm - - - - iv. 129 

Parlhenius iii. 71 

Pascal - - - vi. 40, 4i 

Pasquier i. . J;}1 

Patorculus - it. 360 -iii. 72 - 
v. 454 

v. 5. 11. U-i.9- 15 J, 179 ^00. 

246. 258. 2r?4, 265. 28/. 591. 
370. 378. 3 86 . 3S8. 400, 401 
vi. 14, 15. 39. 64, 65. 250. 259. 

572, 273. 296.309, 310, 3.11. 

312. 326. 348. 352. 388. 
Pausanias, ii. 6. 43. 47. 123, 138. 

174. 189. 
Pearce ------ VK 

Pericles 1 ----- ii. 

Persius ----- vi. S?8l 

Petavius - - - - - v. 10 1 

Peter, v. 15O. 2-a. 406 vi. 6 4. 

70. 188. 268, 269. 302. 3?6. 343, 

344. 348 

Peters - - - - - * v. 283 
Petit, de la Croix - - - i. 316" 
Petit, S. - ii, 50. 386 iii. 392 
Pha^drus - - - - - vi. 100 
Phalaris ----- i. 3.52 
Pherecydes Syrius - - iv. 136 
Philo, "iii. 1*17 iv. 376. 423 

V. 133vi. 237. 354 
Pliilo-Biblius, ii. 346 iv. 158-^ 

vi. 37. 285 

Philo-.JudaDus - - - - v. 38.$ 
Philostratus - ii. 10. 65. 178 
Phoronis ----- iij. 28(> 
Pliotius - - - ii. 182iii. 16 5 
Pindar - - ii. 105. 142 v. 177 
Plato, i. 210. 258. 300. 3l6. 342. 

34-7. 354 ii. 8. 22. 24, 25. 51. 

54. 79- 96. 104. 119. 125. 127, 

TJS, 12.9. 131. 136. 147. 150., 

H)6. 212. 3ft 4 iii. 2. 19. 51. 24. 

36. 40. 46. 52. o. 115. 118. 

135. 141. 154. 160. 178. 214. 

275. 291. 382 iv. 10. 131. 154. 

17?. 235. 251.398 v. 35. 133. 

vi. 237 

Plelho - - - - ii. 115. 115 
Pliny, i. 273 sit. 182.319 iii. 1 1. 

121. 396 iv. 36. 45. 103. 106, 

107. 111. 148.407. 411 
Plotinus - - - - - iii.. 38*5 
Plnche, Able de la - ii. 340 

iii. :)06. 307. 39S- iv. 196. 211. 

] Plutarch, i. 148. 240. 298. 300. 

.;23. 325. 338. 354 ii. 9. 27. 

28. 3-). 61. 70. 7"6. 8^>. ();3. <)7. 

1(>5. 260. 307- 320. 33$. 345. 

355 iii. 29, 30. 57. 40. $3, SI, 

[ 6. 101. 107. 12"1. 137. 14*. 



160. 169. 176. 183. 226. 294. 

310. 371. 383. 385. 392 iv. 

120. 122. 136. 145. 149- 186. 

103. 207, 208. 225. 237. 296. 

371. 418. 426. 434 v. 177 

vi. 119 
Pococke - iv. 280. 376 v. 419 

Polo ii. 366 

Polybius, i, 325, 326, 327 iii. 3. 

6. 8. 41 

Pompey ----- i. 275 
Pomponatius - i. 220. 275. 342 
Pomponius Mela - - - iv. 188 
Pope, i. 309 ii. 230 iv. 205. 

252, 253, 254, 255. 435, 436. 
Porphyry, i. 321. 331. 352 ii. 9. 

19. 26. 5^. 71. 105. 107. 151. 

178. 208. 346 iii. 28. 34. 60. 

171- 193. 385 iv. 141. 151. 

185. 197.397.418 
Posidoaius - - i. 275 iii. 178 
Port-Royal - - - v. 443, 444 
Prades, Abbe de - - - vi. 207 
Pratextatus - - - - ii. 58 
Pridcaux, iv. 199. 203. 20S. 366, 

367. 417. 421 v. 41. 370 

vi. 113 
Proclus, ii. 119. 128 iii. 292 

iv. 146. 148. 418 
Psellus - - - - - - ii. 144 

Ptolemy ----- iv. 104 

Purchas - - - - iv. 118. 150 

Puffendorf ----- ii. 364 

Pythagoras, ii. 189 iii. 86, 87. 

141 iv. 97. 141 


Quintilian, i. 318 ii. 114 iii. 62. 
109. 112 iv. 47. 139. 399.414, 
415. 420 vi. 72 


Rabelais - - - iii. 307 iv. 9 
Ramsay ------ iii. 179 

Reinesius ----- iv. 412 

Renaudot - - - - - iv. 164 

Rimius ------ vi. 4 

Rogers ------ iv. 15 

Romaine ----- iv. 28 

Rousseau - - - iii. 218. 389 
Rowe .--..- ii. 372 

Rubruquis, Father - - ii. 373 

Ru*us ii. 154 

Rufinus ------ iv. 176" 

Rutherforth, v. 120. 148. 164. 
404. 479, 480 vi. 35. 131 


Sachevcrell - ... i v . 3 

Salomo ------ iv. 19 

Sallust - iii. 42. 107. 140, 145 
Sanchoniatho, ii. 36. 44. 346 

iii. 190. 273. 279. 281. 283.301. 

iv. 122. 149. 158. 182. 205. 

368. 375, 376. 423 vi. 285 . 

Sauvage i. 33 1 

Saxo-Grammaticus - - iv. 430 
Scaivpla - - - ii. 25 iii. IP 
Scaliger - - - ii. 79 v. 133 
Scarron - i. 154, 155 ii. 141 
Schultcns, v. 321. 330. 341. 344. 

457. 467 

Scott vi. 8. 26 

Scribonius Largus - - iii. 357 
Selden - i. 250 ii. 363 vi. 68 
Seneca, i. 171. 208, 209. 301 

ii. 139- 354 iii. 39. 91. 104. 

145. 166. 272 

Serranus ----- iii. 214 
Servetus --.- v. 13 
Scrvius, ii. 103. 121. 130. 154. 

163. 363 iii. 70, 71, 72. 94. 

-iv. 224. 374 v. 578 

vi. 201 
Settle ------ iv. 383 

Severus ----- ii. 170 

Seward ... - - ii. 21 
Sextus Empiricus, i. 263. 302 

iii. 50. 84. 159. 288. 368. 3/1. 

392 iv. 110. 

Silhouette ----- ii. 342 
Simon, Father, ii. 546 iv. 391 

v. 86. 132. 184 
Shaftesbury, Lord, i. 150. 169, 

170. 176. 182, 183, 184. 190. 

236 ii. 217. 302. 304. 379 

iii. 9 239. 246 iv. 312. 

v. 236 vi. 37. l6l. 186. 197 
Shakespeare - - iv, 174. 408 

Shaw iv. 406 417 

Sherlock, iii. 389 iv. 7. 395. 

436 v. 102. 234. 384. 420 

vi. 130. 200, 201. 207. 260. 344 


Sberingham - i. 3l6 iv. lo4 

tymcktbrd, iv. 96. 159. 335. 367- 

398. 402, 403. 433. 439 

v. 048 vi. 127.279 

Smallbroeke - - - - iv. 28 

Smith - - iv. 135. 313 vi. 84 
Sociuus ------ vi. 47 

Socrates, i. 188 iii. 45, 46. 86. 

1.95 iv. 71 

Solomon - - - ii. 153 v. 135 
Sopater - * ii. 23. 77. 97. 143 
Sophocles, i. 300 ii. 6. 12. 105. 
120 v. 49 

Sotado ii. 179 

Spencer, iii. 285 iv. 81. 301. 
323. 326. 334. 343. 347. 36*1, 
362. 439. 452. 454 v.93. 251, 
252. 315 vi. 127. 354 
Spines;!, i. 1S8. 273. 330 iv. 309. 
447 v. 124. 144. 166. 272. 
275 vi. 364. S6 9 
Stanley, i. 349 iii. 83. 101. 163. 

362 iv. 401 

Stubbing, iv. 18. 29. 458 v. 154. 

180. 250. 272. 281. 285, 286. 

399. 406. 479 vi. 24. 26. 40. 

131. 137. 155. 157. 162, 163. 

171. 201. 203. 207 

Stephen - - - - iv. 80. 306 

fctillingfleet, iv. 147. 159. 247. 

367 vi. 1 13 
Stobaeus, i. 324.332.341 ii. 137. 

152 iii. 85. l63. 166 
Strabo, i. 320. 325 ii. 2. 5. 32. 
43. 72. 157. 162. 181. 319- 382. 
iii. 10.29- 41. 97. 171. 356 
ir. 92. 97. 146. 200. 228. 371. 
374. 407 
Stahlenberg - - - - iv. 119 

Suarez vi. 210 

Suetonius, ii. 10.57. 98. 112. 298. 

360. 369, 370 
Suidas, i. 326 ii. 50 iii. 182 

iv. 419 

Swift - - i. 152. 214 ii. 263 

Sibylline Oracles - * - ii. 3 

Sykes, iii. 123, 124. 359, 360 

v. 118., 264, 

S65. 267. 479 vi. 66. 75. 131. 

506. 391 

Symniachus - - - - ii. 308 
Syncellus - ii. 11 6. 356 iv. 104 
fcynesius,ii.l5 iiiJ23.107 vi.395 
Syriaau* * - - - - ii. 


Tachard it. 373 

Tacitus, ii. 74. 129. 298. 312.315. 

317- 327 Hi. 26*2 iv. 37. 132. 

146. 148. 203. 212. 224. 296. 

374. 407. 425. 429 
Tanaquil Faber - - - vi. 72 
Tanchum, Rabbi - - - v. 414 
Tasso ------ ii. 207 

Tatian - iii. 158. 181 iv. 410 
Tavernier ----- ii. 26$ 

Taylor iv. 3<> 

Taylor of Norwich - - v. 199 

Teles iii. 85 

Temple, Sir W. - - - i. 315 
Tenisoii - - - - - - iv. 31 

Terence, i. 258 ii. 13. 21.367 

iii. 180 
Tertullian, ii. 11. 17. 47. 62. 105, 

114. 124. 370. 376 iii. 158. 

197, 198, 199. 292 iv.45. 49 
Themistius, ii. 118. 144 iii. 20. 

Theodoret, ii. 3. 62. 70 ii. 251* 

355 iv. 159 

Thecderus - - - . - i. 273 
Theophilus ----- ii. 34.7 
Theophrastus, i. 315. 325 iii. 22, 

iii. 252 
Thomas ------ iv. 210 

Thoth iii. 190 

Thrasyllus - - - - - iv. 159 
Thucydides - - ii. 345 v. 34O 
Tibullus ----- ii. 70 
Timaus - i. 325. 327 ii. 71 

iii. 2. 41. 78. 82, 83 
Tindal, i. 16*1. 202. 231 ii. 26?, 

263 iii. 37. 211 iv. 71. 392, 

393, 394. 444 v. 167. 171. 

272 vi. 11. 41. 135. 351 
\Toland, i. 202. 231 iii. 28. 37. 
{ 172. 216. 268, 269. 271. 295 

v. 124. 199 

Touruemine - - - - v. 100. 
Trajan - - - - - iv. 46. 65 
Trismegist - - - - iv. 285 
Trogus Pompeius - - iv. 370 
Turnebus - i. 343 iv. 40O 
Turner - ... - - iv. 31 
TeUes - - - - ii. 139. 143 


A u T ii o n s, & c . CITE D. 


Valla - - i. 3-19 

Vauini - - i. 273 -v. 2() G 
Varro, ii. l(>. 24. 52. 330 iii. 19. 

58. 110. 124. 2(>5 iv. 5221- 
Villeins - - - - ii. 34-1. 371 
Telly, Abbe ----- ii. 36 2 

Venn iv. 29 

Victorias - - - - ii. 57- 348 
Virgil, i. 341 ii. 67. 78. 349. 362, 

363, 364 -iii. 70. 72. 186 . 

383 iv. 374 vi. 70,71. 75. 80. 

114. 201. 3 6.3, 304 
Vitruvius - - ii. loS iv. 390 
Viz/iinius - - - - - i. 331 
Voltaire, i. 280 ii. 45. 88. 374 

iv. 366 v. 276 vi. 3j.7. 363. 

365. 368.373. 376 
Vossius, iii, 296 iv. 197 v. 4ltf 


Walkrr ---- iv. 136 
W niter - - - - - ii. 389 

\Yaterland, iv, 29. 323 vi. 127. 


Uebster - - - - iv. 29, 30 
\Vhcatl-ey ----- iv. 446 
\Vhistou, iv. 453 v. 130. 13 2. 

259. 279. 407 vi. 55. 84, S5. 

200. 260 
Whitby - v. 133 

Wilkins ----- iv. 373 
\Villiam of Newbourg - vi. 108 
\Viiikciniaii -" - ii. 62 iv. 423 
\Vitsius, iv. 302. 319. 323. 352. 

452 vi. 127 

Wollastoa - - i. 253 ii. 273 
Wood, Anthony - - - iii. 386 
\\Vjlston ---.-- i. 149 
World ----"- iv. 3S l > 
Wycherky - - * - i. 15O 

Xeuoplion, iii. 39. 46. 52. 


Xabara - - - - * - iv. 19 
Zatynthus ----- iii. 28 
/aleuchus - - - - - v. 3.35 
Zecbarial), iv. 138 v. 96. 141. 

160. 333. 33S. 351. 3\ >3. 367- 


Xciy> - - i. 240 iii. 39- 101 
Zeqxis ------ v. 2 

Zuphaniah, iii. 347 v. 147. 327 

vi. 87 

Zinzendorf, Count - vi. 4, 5 
Zopliar - - - - - v. 31O 
Zoroaster - - - ii. 117- 145 
Zusirnus- - - - . ii. 6i. 5r 



r/oudou : Printed br Luke Hansard and Soii. 1 ^ 
near LiucoluVlnu field*,- 


^} ^ 




1 1 


University of Toronto 








Acme Library Card Pocket 

Under Pat. "Ref. Index File" 

- , 

* . A 



3ML -